Inside the 21St-Century Classroom

Home , 21st century, Common Sense Media

2019 THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM 2019 THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM COMMON SENSE IS GRATEFUL FOR THE GENEROUS SUPPORT AND UNDERWRITING THAT FUNDED THIS RESEARCH REPORT:

Eva and Bill Price Price Family Research Fund

Craig Newmark Philanthropies Carnegie Corporation of New York

Symantec Corporation Poses Family Foundation

TPG Capital LP

CREDITS

Authors: Vanessa Vega, Ph.D., Rockman et al Michael B. Robb, Ph.D., Common Sense

Copy editor: Jenny Pritchett

Designers: Allison Rudd Dana K. Herrick

Suggested citation: Vega, V., & Robb, M. B. (2019). The Common Sense census: Inside the 21st-century classroom. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction. 1

Key Findings...... 2

Methodology...... 5

Teacher and School Characteristics. 6

Digital Citizenship Curricula and Competencies . 8

Teachers’ Usage of Digital Tools and Perceptions of . Their Effectiveness for Student Learning...... 16

Access to Technology for Classroom Learning...... 28

Technology-Integration Policies ...... 37

Conclusions. 46

Appendix ...... 48 INTRODUCTION

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES CONTINUE TO be integrated •• K–12 teachers’ usage of digital tools and perceptions of and embedded into school districts, changing how teachers and their effectiveness for student learning. The impact of students work and learn. Previous research has examined the many educational technology on learning often depends on the ways in which schools are evolving, including understanding context in which, and purpose for which, the technology is what products teachers are using, how socioeconomic status used. Teachers’ usage of and perceptions of the effective - relates to classroom technology access, and the barriers teachers ness of various types of educational technology tools face in integrating technology effectively (e.g., Bill and Melinda are examined, while considering the contexts of teaching Gates Foundation, 20151; Blackboard and Speak Up, 20172; and and learning. Takeuchi and Vaala, 20143). However, much remains to be learned •• Access to technology for classroom learning. What does about classroom technology use. Common Sense, working with students’ access to technology devices for classroom Rockman et al, set out to learn more about the state of the learning at home and at school look like? Classroom teachers 21st-century classroom by surveying classroom teachers about also report on how their students’ access affects their ability their experiences and attitudes around educational technology. to do homework, as well as the nature of parent-teacher Teachers provide a wealth of knowledge about the impact of communications about classroom technology. educational technology in their classrooms. This report examines how K–12 teachers across the U.S. are currently using educational •• Technology-integration policies. To understand how technology tools with students in their classrooms and what technology is used in the classroom, school policies related impacts on learning they are observing, with consideration given to educational technology are examined, especially in the to students’ broader learning contexts. context of teachers’ technology-related concerns.

Using the results of a nationally representative survey of over With this report, we hope to shed light on the state of educational 1,200 K–12 teachers, this report covers four main topic areas: technology in U.S. classrooms, with a goal of helping teachers, •• Digital citizenship curricula and competencies. In a digital administrators, school districts, and others who have a stake in world, the skills needed to think critically and engage online children’s education make smart, evidence-based decisions on in a safe and responsible manner are highly important. what is most effective for students. Yet little research has examined the extent to which U.S. teachers are engaging in classroom practices to develop students’ digital citizenship competencies. The present study examines the prevalence of teaching and perceived effectiveness of digital citizenship competencies and the use of digital citizenship resources.

1. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (2015). Teachers know best: What educators want from digital instructional tools (2.0). Seattle, WA: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Retrieved from http://k12education.gatesfoundation.org/resource/what-educators-want-from-digital-instructional- tools-2-0/ 2. Project Tomorrow. (2017). 2017 digital learning report. Retrieved from https://tomorrow.org/speakup/speak-up-2016-trends-digital-learning- june-2017.html 3. Takeuchi, L., and Vaala, S. (2014). Level up learning: A national survey on teaching with digital games. New York, NY: Joan Ganz Cooney Center. Retrieved from http://joanganzcooneycenter.org/publication/level-up-learning-a-national-survey-on-teaching-with-digital-games/

1 3 Digital citizenship is being taught Teachers worry about their in a majority of schools. students’ ability to critically

Approximately six out of 10 U.S. K–12 teachers used some type of evaluate online content. 4 digital citizenship curriculum or resource with students in their Teachers’ top technology-related concern was that “students lack classrooms, while approximately seven out of 10 taught at least skills to critically evaluate online information,” which 35 percent one type of digital citizenship competency. The most commonly observed “frequently” or “very frequently” in their classrooms. addressed topic areas were digital drama, cyberbullying, and hate Relatedly, news and media literacy was the fourth most taught speech (taught by 46 percent of teachers), followed by privacy digital citizenship competency. The second top concern was that and safety (taught by 44 percent of teachers). Among those “technology distracts students from the learning experience and teachers who taught any type of digital citizenship competency, interferes with learning,” reported by 26 percent of teachers as nearly six out of 10 did so at least monthly. “frequent” or “very frequent” in their classrooms. This issue was also reported more often as grade levels increased. 2 Teachers believe digital citizenship is 4 effective in helping students make More than a quarter of high school smart, safe, and ethical decisions online. teachers report sexting as an issue.

Among teachers who used any type of digital citizenship curricu- Twenty-seven percent of high school teachers reported that lum in their classrooms, an overwhelming majority (91%) said it sexting occurred in their classrooms at least occasionally, com- was at least “moderately” effective, including approximately half pared to 19 percent of middle school teachers, 5 percent of (52 percent) who said it was “extremely” or “very” effective in third- through fifth-grade teachers, and 9 percent of kindergarten helping students make smart, safe, and ethical decisions online. through second-grade teachers. Only 10 percent said it was “slightly” or “not at all” effective.

4. Defined in the survey as “thinking critically, behaving safely, and participating responsibly in the digital world.”

2 THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM © 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 5 7 Video is the king of edtech The gap between the edtech in the classroom. products teachers use and

Video-streaming services (e.g., YouTube, SchoolTube, Netflix) what they say is effective is real were the most commonly used type of digital tool, used by and cuts across subjects. approximately 60 percent of K–12 teachers with students in their For example, ELA teachers rated productivity and presentation classrooms. Productivity and presentation tools (e.g., Google G tools and assistive technology as the most effective types of Suite for Education, Microsoft Office) constituted the second digital tools for developing ELA content knowledge and skills, but most common type of digital tool, used by approximately half of they often used other digital tools that they rated as less effective teachers with their students. The least used digital tools were with greater frequency. Similarly, math teachers rated supple- tools for well-being and health (25 percent), digital creation tools mental apps or websites as the most effective digital tools for (25 percent), and social media (13 percent). developing students’ content knowledge and skills in math, but they used them less often than many other digital tools that they 6 rated as less effective. Teachers place a high value on digital creation tools in developing 21st-century 8 skills, but these tools are among the Many teachers are not receiving least used in the classroom. effective professional development

Productivity and presentation tools (e.g., Google G Suite, (PD) to support their use of Microsoft Office), digital creation tools (e.g., iMovie, Photoshop, educational technology. Scratch), and learning management systems (e.g., Google Only four out of 10 teachers considered the PD they received to Classroom, Canvas, Moodle) were rated by teachers as the most support their use of educational technology to be “very” or effective digital tools for developing students’ 21st-century skills “extremely” effective. in communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and/or creativity. While productivity and presentation tools were used in about half of classrooms, digital creation tools were only used in 25 percent of classrooms. 9 Many technology products purchased by schools and districts go unused.

Approximately one-third of teachers said that they did not, or practically never, used a technology product that was provided to them by their school or district. Top reasons for not using such products were that they were not relevant to students’ learning needs, not engaging for students’ learning, or not effective for developing students’ knowledge and/or skills.

© 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM 3 10 12 Home access to technology Approximately a third of teachers continues to be a challenge for (29 percent) said that it would limit teachers and students in schools their students’ learning “a great deal” serving lower-income students. or “quite a bit” if their students didn’t

Approximately one out of 10 teachers (12 percent) reported that have home access to a computer or the majority of their students (61 percent to 100 percent) did not the internet. have home access to the internet or a computer. These teachers Teachers in schools with student populations of predominantly were more likely to teach in Title I schools or schools serving students of color were more likely to say that it would limit their predominantly students of color. This may have been a challenge students’ learning “a great deal” or “quite a bit” if their students because, as grade levels increased, teachers were more likely to did not have adequate access to broadband internet or a comput- assign homework that required access to digital devices and/or ing device at home to do homework (34 percent), as compared broadband internet outside of school. Teachers of grades 6–12 to teachers in schools with a mix of white students and students were more likely than teachers of grades K–5 to assign homework of color or teachers in schools with predominantly white students at least once a week that required access to digital devices and/ (26 percent vs. 27 percent, respectively). or broadband internet outside of school (41 percent of high school teachers and 34 percent of middle school teachers vs. 23 percent of grade 3–5 teachers and 20 percent of K–2 teachers). 11 Teachers who assign homework that requires access to digital devices and/or broadband internet outside of school are more likely to teach in affluent, non-Title I schools than in Title I schools.

Approximately four out of 10 teachers (42 percent) in Title I schools “never” assigned homework that required digital access outside of school, as compared to three out of 10 (31 percent) of teachers in non-Title I schools who “never” did so. This is a greater issue as children enter middle and high school and teachers are more likely to assign homework that requires computers and the internet.

TO DEVELOP THE NATIONAL survey, Rockman et al conducted Aggregated and disaggregated results were analyzed and three focus groups with nine teachers from the Midwest region. reported for each of six key characteristics: The nine participants were asked to complete a draft survey in •• Grade-band level advance of the focus group and to provide qualitative feedback (four levels: K–2, 3–5, 6–8, 9–12) about how well response options captured a broad variety of technology-integrated practices; whether survey items were easy •• Average years in the classroom to understand, interpret, and answer; how close-ended responses (four levels: 1–5 years, 6–10 years, 11–20 years, 21+ years) could be improved; and where open-ended questions or response •• Regional context options were needed. (three categories: rural, urban, suburban) The online questionnaire was designed to take 20 minutes and •• Racial/ethnic diversity at teachers’ schools administered to a nationally representative sample of 1,208 U.S. (three categories: predominantly white [75%+ white], K–12 teachers in May 2018 by Rockman et al and national survey diverse [26%+ students of color and less than 75% white], sampling consultants Peter Gold, Jordan Losen, and Joe Citoli predominantly students of color [75%+ students of color]) (VeraQuest Inc.). Random-probability sampling of a national teacher database was used with sampling quotas to provide an •• Title I status even distribution of teachers from four grade-band levels and to (Title 1 or non-Title 1) reflect trends in the national teacher population based on the •• Subject area taught most recently available NCES statistics (NCES, 2017) 5. The (eight categories: science, math, English language arts, sample was constructed from a combination of U.S. Census data social studies, fine arts, foreign language, physical and data from the National Center for Educational Statistics education, other) (NCES) to be representative of the teacher population and the students they teach. Targets were based on census divisions, the Differences in responses according to school or teacher charac- race/ethnicity of students, Title 1 status of schools, and school teristics were reported for significant differences based on t-tests type (public vs. private). Targets were also set by grade groupings using a p value of < .05 and percentage point differences greater and residential status of the student population. A common rim- than 5 points. weighting technique (i.e., iterative proportional fitting) adjusted sample proportions to resemble the proportions of the target population. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percent (95 percent confidence interval).

5. National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). The condition of education 2017 (No. 2017–144). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2017144

TEACHER RESPONDENTS WERE PRIMARILY female, with an average of 13 years of teaching experience. Subject areas most TABLE 1. Teacher and school characteristics commonly taught by respondents were English language arts, Teacher Characteristics math, social studies, and science (57 percent, 48 percent, Number of K–12 teachers surveyed 1,208 41 percent, and 38 percent, respectively). The subjects least Grade level taught K–2 23% commonly taught were fine arts, physical education, and foreign 3–5 23% language (14 percent, 11 percent, and 5 percent, respectively) 6–8 23% (Table 1). 9–12 31% Approximately half of respondents taught in a suburban region, Average number of years teaching 13 with the remainder in urban and rural settings (26 percent and Teacher gender Female 87% 25 percent, respectively). Four out of 10 teachers said they taught Male 14% in schools where approximately 75 percent or more of the stu- Subject areas English language arts 57% dents were white. Most respondents taught in public schools (85 taught Math 48% percent), most of which were Title I schools (58 percent), as Social studies 41% reported by respondents. Science 38% Title I status, race/ethnicity, and regional trends. Respondents Fine arts 14% teaching in rural and urban settings were more likely to report Physical education 11% that their schools had Title I status than respondents teaching in Foreign language 5% suburban settings (70 percent and 69 percent vs. 46 percent, Other 16% respectively). Respondents teaching in schools serving predomi- School Characteristics* nantly students of color were more likely to report having Title I Type of school Public 85% status than those in schools serving predominantly white stu- Private 10% dents or in schools serving students of color and white students Charter 5% (75 percent with Title I status vs. 45 percent or 55 percent, Regional setting Suburban 49% respectively). Urban 26% Race/ethnicity and regional trends. Teachers in rural schools most Rural 25% often reported that their schools had predominantly white stu- Racial/ethnic 75%+ white students 43% diversity dents (i.e., 75 percent or more students were white). Among Diverse (26%–74% white) 33% teachers in rural schools, 42 percent taught in schools serving 75%+ students of color 24% predominantly white students, 23 percent taught in schools Title I status Title I (high poverty) 58% serving students of color and white students, and 11 percent Non-Title 1 (non-high poverty) 31% taught in schools serving predominantly students of color. Unsure 11%

*Characteristics of respondents’ schools as reported by teacher respondents. Notes: “Students of color” includes the racial/ethnic categories of “minority students” in the U.S. Department of Education’s Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey (2014–2015) from the National Center for Education Statistics’ Common Core of Data (CCD). These “minority students” include “students who are Black, Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and of two or more races.” According to The Condition of Education 2017 (McFarland et al., 2017), racial/ethnic diversity in U.S. K–12 public schools can be categorized according to the proportion of students who identify as white vs. the racial/ethnic category collectively termed “minority” by the NCES. Based on this approach, approximately 30 percent of public U.S. K–12 schools had 75 percent or more of its students identify as “white,” approximately 40 percent of public U.S. K–12 schools had 26 percent to 74 percent of its students identify as “white,” and approximately 30 percent of public U.S. K–12 schools had 25 percent or less of its students identify as “white” (with the remainder of students in these schools identifying as racial/ethnic groups collectively termed “minority” by the NCES).

6 THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM © 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Teachers in urban schools most often reported that their schools had predominantly students of color (i.e., 75 percent or more FIGURE 1. Teacher and school characteristics were students of color). Among teachers in urban school settings, 47 percent taught in schools that had predominantly RACIAL/ETHNIC DIVERSITY students of color, 22 percent taught in schools that had students of color and white students, and 10 percent taught in schools serving predominantly white students. Finally, teachers in subur- Diverse ban school settings were most likely to report that their schools 75%+ white 33% had mixed student populations with students of color and white students 43% students (i.e., more than 25 percent students of color and more 75%+ than 25 percent white students). Among teachers in suburban students of color schools, 55 percent reported that their schools had a population 24% of white students and students of color, 48 percent reported that their schools had predominantly white students, and 42 percent reported that their schools had predominantly students of color. REGIONAL SETTING

Rural 25% Suburban 49% Urban 26%

RACIAL/ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF STUDENTS

1% each Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, American Indian/ Alaska Native, Other 4% Multiracial 5% Asian White 49% Latino 19%

Black 20%

YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE

27%

20% 20% 19%

14%

1–5 6–10 11–15 16–20 21+

Note: See page 5 for further definition of demographic groups.

HIGHLIGHTS

•• Approximately six out of 10 U.S. K–12 teachers used “technology distracts students from the learning experi- some type of digital citizenship curriculum or resource ence and interferes with learning,” reported by 26 percent with students in their classrooms, while approximately of teachers as “frequent” or “very frequent” in their class- seven out of 10 taught at least one type of digital citizen- rooms. This issue was also reported more often as grade ship competency. The most commonly addressed areas levels increased. were digital drama, cyberbullying, and hate speech •• The frequency of both cyberbullying and online hate (taught by 46 percent of teachers), followed by privacy speech increased with grade level, with middle and high and safety (taught by 44 percent of teachers). Among school teachers reporting higher frequencies of cyber- those teachers who taught any type of digital citizenship bullying and online hate speech than elementary school competency, nearly six out of 10 did so at least monthly. teachers. Approximately one out of 10 teachers •• Among teachers who used any type of digital citizenship (13 percent) said that cyberbullying occurred in their curriculum in their classrooms, approximately half classrooms “frequently” or “very frequently,” and three (52 percent) said it was “extremely” or “very” effective out of 10 (34 percent) said it occurred at least “occasion- in helping students make smart, safe, and ethical ally.” Approximately one out of 10 teachers (8 percent) decisions online. Only 10 percent said it was “slightly” or reported that online hate speech occurred in their class- “not at all” effective. rooms “frequently” or “very frequently,” and two out of 10 (22 percent) said that it occurred at least “occasionally.” •• Teachers in Title I schools were more likely to use digital citizenship curricula or resources than teachers •• High school teachers reported sexting as an issue more in more affluent schools (62 percent of teachers in Title I than teachers at any other grade level. The frequency of schools vs. 52 percent of teachers in non-Title I schools). teachers’ reports of sexting also increased with grade However, there were no differences in the frequency of level: Twenty-seven percent of high school teachers teaching digital citizenship competencies according to reported that sexting occurred in their classrooms at least Title I status. occasionally, compared to 19 percent of middle school teachers, 5 percent of third- through fifth-grade teachers, •• Teachers in schools with more diverse student popula- and 9 percent of kindergarten through second-grade tions were more likely to use digital citizenship curricula teachers. or resources (61 percent) than teachers in schools with predominantly white student populations (50 percent). •• Digital citizenship competencies were taught most Similarly, teachers in schools with more diverse student heavily in high school. Approximately eight out of 10 populations were more likely to teach digital citizenship high school teachers taught at least one type of digital competencies (75 percent), as compared to teachers in citizenship competency. However, high school teachers schools with predominantly white student populations reported using digital citizenship curricula or resources (66 percent). less often than teachers of other grade levels, suggesting there may be a lack of curricular resources for •• Teachers’ top technology-related concern was that this group. “students lack skills to critically evaluate online information,” which 35 percent observed “frequently” or “very •• Overall, the findings show that teachers’ reports of frequently” in their classrooms. Relatedly, news and technology-related concerns increase with grade level, media literacy was the fourth most taught digital citizen- underscoring the need to teach digital citizenship ship competency. The second top concern was that competencies, especially in upper grade levels.

8 THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM © 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. “DIGITAL CITIZENSHIP” WAS DEFINED in the survey as “thinking critically, behaving safely, and participating responsibly in the FIGURE 2. Types of digital citizenship competencies taught by digital world.” Yet little to no research has examined the extent to U.S. teachers which teachers are engaging in classroom practices to develop Digital drama, cyberbullying, and hate speech students’ digital citizenship competencies. The present study 46% addresses this gap in the literature with a nationally representative survey, while examining the need for digital citizenship Privacy and safety competencies. 43% Teachers were asked what type of digital citizenship curriculum Relationships and communication they have used (if any). They were also asked whether they taught any of the following six key digital citizenship competen- 38% cies, as defined by Common Sense6: News and media literacy

•• Media balance and well-being. Being aware of the 38% health impacts of media and promoting balance between media use and other activities. Digital footprint and identity 33% •• Privacy and safety. Protecting our online data, understanding how we’re tracked online, and Media balance and well-being

being careful of online scams. 25%

•• Digital footprint and identity. What we share about ourselves online and how that affects our identities and reputations. FIGURE 3. Digital citizenship: curricula used vs. competencies •• Relationships and communication. How we communicate taught in teachers’ classrooms and how we develop relationships using digital media, and avoiding risky sharing like sexting. K–2 62% •• Digital drama, cyberbullying, and hate speech. How we 60% treat others online with kindness, respect, and dignity. 3–5 •• News and media literacy. How we evaluate online information and credibility, and being a critical media 69% consumer and creator. 75%

Approximately six out of 10 teachers said that they used a digital 6–8

citizenship curriculum or resource in their classrooms. Additionally, 57% approximately seven out of 10 teachers taught lessons and/or 73% facilitated activities to develop students’ digital citizenship competencies in at least one of the areas defined in this study, while 9–12 the remaining three out of 10 teachers did not teach any of the 48%

defined digital citizenship competencies (Figure 2). 76%

Across all grade levels, teaching digital citizenship competencies All grades appears to be more common than using digital citizenship curri- 58% cula or resources, particularly among middle and high school grades (Figure 3). Teachers of K–2 were almost equally likely to 72% use digital citizenship curricula as they were to teach digital citi- ◼ Use digital citizenship curricula in classroom zenship competencies in non-packaged ways. ◼ Teach digital citizenship competencies in classroom

6. https://www.commonsense.org/education/digital-citizenship/curriculum

© 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM 9 High school teachers were less likely than teachers of other grade interested in teaching digital citizenship competencies, they may levels to report that they use any type of digital citizenship curricula lack access to, or awareness of, age-appropriate digital citizen- or resources in their classrooms. Approximately half of high school ship curricula targeted to their specific subject areas. teachers (48 percent) reported using any type of digital citizen- Among the teachers who taught digital citizenship competencies, ship curricula or resources compared to 57 percent of sixth- to teachers taught 2.2 digital citizenship competencies on average, eighth-grade teachers, 69 percent of third- to fifth-grade teach- and the most commonly taught areas were digital drama, cyber- ers, and 62 percent of kindergarten to second-grade teachers bullying, and hate speech (taught by 46 percent of teachers), (Table 2). followed by privacy and safety (taught by 43 percent of teachers) Teachers of grades K–2 were less likely than teachers of other grade (Figure 2). Teachers of grades 3–5 reported teaching each of levels to report teaching any of the digital citizenship competencies these popular topics more often than teachers of other grade defined in this study. Sixty percent of K–2 teachers taught digital levels; digital drama, cyberbullying, hate speech, and/or privacy citizenship competencies as defined in this study vs. 75 percent and safety were taught by half of teachers of grades 3–5 (54 of grade 3–5 teachers, 73 percent of grade 6–8 teachers, and 76 percent), compared to approximately 40 percent of teachers of percent of grade 9–12 teachers. other grade levels (37 percent of K–2 teachers; 45 percent of grade 6–8 teachers; and 43 percent of high school teachers). Most secondary teachers (76 percent) taught at least one type of digital citizenship competency in their classrooms, and approx- Approximately 10 percent of teachers taught all six areas of imately half used digital citizenship curricula. In contrast, digital citizenship competencies. Among teachers who taught all approximately six out of 10 K–2 teachers taught at least one type six competencies, most were teachers of grades 3–12 (16 percent of digital competency, and the same number used some type of K–2, 29 percent grades 3–5, 24 percent grades 6–8, and 32 digital citizenship curriculum or resource. This finding suggests percent grades 9–12). Approximately four out of 10 teachers (42 that digital citizenship curricula or resources may be less avail- percent) taught three or more digital citizenship competencies. able, familiar, and/or relevant to secondary grade teachers than Among teachers who taught three or more competencies, the to K–2 teachers. While most high school teachers seemed data indicated again that digital citizenship competencies were

TABLE 2. Teachers who use digital citizenship curricula or teach digital citizenship competencies

Use digital citizenship. curricula or resources . Teach digital citizenship Percent of teachers who … in the classroom competencies Total 58% 72%

Grade level K–2 62% 60% 3–5 69% 75% 6–8 57% 73% 9–12 48% 76% Regional setting Rural 53% 67% Urban 59% 76% Suburban 60% 72% Racial/ethnic diversity 75%+ white students 50% 67% 75%+ students of color 59% 72% Diverse (26%–74% white) 63% 75% Title 1 status Title 1 62% 74% Not Title 1 52% 69%

Note: See page 5 for further definition of demographic groups.

10 THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM © 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. taught most heavily in grades 3–12, especially in high school: Sixteen percent taught K–2, 27 percent taught grades 3–5, 24 FIGURE 4. Frequency with which U.S. K–12 teachers teach percent taught grades 6–8, and 33 percent taught grades 9–12. digital citizenship competencies

Among those teachers who taught any type of digital citizenship Media balance and well being (n = 301) competency, nearly six out of 10 did so monthly or more often. 8% 34% 28% 5% 25% Although relationships and communication and news and media literacy were the third and fourth most popular, taught by four out Relationships and communication (n = 463) of 10 teachers (38 percent) who taught digital citizenship com- 14% 31% 25% 5% 26% petencies, these areas were taught more frequently among those who taught them (Figure 4), suggesting these may be rich topics News and media literacy (n = 460) to which students respond. Among teachers who taught relation- 12% 31% 26% 6% 25% ships and communication and/or news and media literacy, seven out of 10 (69 percent) did so monthly or more often, whereas Privacy and safety (n = 524) among teachers who taught privacy and safety and/or digital 8% 29% 26% 6% 31% drama, cyberbullying, and hate speech, the two most popular digital citizenship competencies, six out of 10 did so at least Digital drama, cyberbullying, and hate speech (n = 550) monthly (63 percent and 62 percent, respectively). Similarly, 9% 26% 27% 7% 31% although only a quarter of teachers taught media balance and Digital footprint and identity (n = 394) well-being, 70 percent of those did so at least monthly. 6% 24% 28% 9% 33% Digital Citizenship Curricula Usage and Perceptions of Effectiveness ◼ Daily ◼ Weekly ◼ Monthly ◼ Every other month ◼ A few times a year

Approximately six out of 10 U.S. teachers (58 percent) used Note: Segments may not total 100% due to rounding. some type of digital citizenship curriculum or resource in their classrooms. Among teachers who used any type of digital citizenship curriculum in their classrooms, approximately half (52 percent) said it was “extremely” or “very” effective in helping FIGURE 5. Teachers’ reports of the level of effectiveness of students make smart, safe, or ethical decisions online, whereas the digital citizenship curricula they use only 10 percent said it was “slightly” or “not at all” effective 1% Not at all (Figure 5). Slightly 9% Extremely 14%

Moderately 39% Very 38%

© 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM 11 Teachers’ Observations of Technology-Related Issues and Concerns FIGURE 6. U.S. teachers’ reports of frequency of technology- related issues and concerns Teachers were asked how often they observed various technology- related issues in their own classrooms (Figure 6). Teachers’ top Students lack skills to critically evaluate online information. concern was that “students lack skills to critically evaluate online 10% 25% 36% 13% 7% 9% information,” which 35 percent observed “frequently” or “very frequently.” Correlating with grade-level expectations, middle Technology distracts students from the learning experience and interferes with learning. and high school teachers reported this issue more frequently than K–2 teachers (38 percent and 42 percent of middle and high 9% 17% 36% 24% 10% 4% school teachers, compared to 25 percent of K–2 teachers). Technology products bring commercial advertising into the learning experience. The second most frequently observed issue was that “technology distracts students from the learning experience and interferes 6% 15% 33% 21% 14% 11% with learning,” reported by 26 percent of teachers as “frequent” My school intervenes in digital incidents involving students that or “very frequent” in their classrooms. This issue was also occur in off-school hours. reported more often as grade levels increased. High school 5% 14% 28% 18% 14% 21% teachers observed technology distraction more than teachers of all other grade levels, while grade 6–8 teachers reported it more Parents/caregivers of students in my class post supportive online often than elementary school teachers. Specifically, approximately messages about me or the administration. half of high school teachers (45 percent), a quarter of middle 4% 11% 26% 16% 17% 26% school teachers (28 percent), and one out of 10 grade 3–5 and Cyberbullying K–2 teachers (13 percent and 12 percent, respectively) observed that technology “frequently” or “very frequently” distracted and 4% 9% 21% 27% 26% 14% interfered with learning. Online hate speech (e.g., racist, sexist, homophobic content) —2% The third most common issue was that “technology products 6% 14% 24% 38% 17% bring commercial advertising into the learning experience,” reported by 21 percent of teachers as “frequently” or “very Parents/caregivers of students in my class post critical online messages about me or the administration. frequently” occurring in their classrooms. Teachers’ reports —2% about the frequency of this issue did not differ according to 4% 13% 23% 34% 24% school or teacher characteristics. Sexting —2% The fourth most common issue was that “my school intervenes 4% 10% 16% 44% 24% in digital incidents involving students that occurred in off-school hours,” reported by 19 percent of teachers. High school and ◼ Very frequently ◼ Frequently ◼ Occasionally ◼ Rarely ◼ Never ◼ Not sure or not applicable middle school teachers were more likely to report that this issue occurred “frequently” or “very frequently,” as compared to Note: Segments do not total 100% due to rounding. elementary school teachers (27 percent and 21 percent of high school and middle school teachers, respectively, versus approximately 13 percent of elementary school teachers).

“Parents or caregivers of students in my class post supportive messages about me or the administration online” was reported by 15 percent of teachers. Though not an “issue” for teachers, it was noteworthy that teachers reported that supportive messages were more commonly posted about them online than critical messages, with less than half as many teachers (7 percent)

12 THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM © 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. stating that critical messages were posted “frequently” or “very frequently.” Teachers of K–2 were more likely than teachers of FIGURE 7. U.S. teachers’ reports of technology-related safety other grade levels to report parents posting supportive messages issues occurring “occasionally,” “frequently,” or “very frequently,” by grade level as occurring “frequently” or “very frequently” (21 percent of K–2 teachers vs. approximately 12 percent of teachers of other grade Cyberbullying levels). Approximately one out of four teachers felt unsure about how often supportive messages were posted about them online, 17% with 26 percent reporting “not sure/not applicable.” Suburban 25% teachers reported “not sure/not applicable” more often than rural teachers (29 percent vs. 21 percent). Similarly, approximately a 45% quarter of teachers (24 percent) were unsure how often critical 46% messages were posted online about them (or did not feel the issue applied to them), with no differences according to school or teacher characteristics. Online hate speech

Cyberbullying and online hate speech were observed by many 14% teachers (61 percent and 46 percent, respectively), though cyber- 11% bullying was observed more frequently. Approximately one out 26% of 10 teachers (13 percent) said that cyberbullying occurred in their classrooms “frequently” or “very frequently,” and three out 31% of 10 (34 percent) said it occurred at least “occasionally.” Similarly, approximately one out of 10 teachers reported that online hate speech (8 percent) occurred in their classrooms Sexting

“frequently” or “very frequently,” and two out of 10 (22 percent) 9% said that it occurred at least “occasionally.” 5% The frequency of both cyberbullying and online hate speech ◼ K–2 19% increased with grade level, with middle and high school teachers ◼ 3–5 ◼ 6–8 reporting higher frequencies of cyberbullying and online hate 27% ◼ 9–12 speech than elementary school teachers. Nearly one out of five upper-grade-level teachers said that cyberbullying occurred “frequently” or “very frequently” in their classrooms (17 percent of grade 6–8 teachers and 18 percent of high school teachers) compared to approximately one out of 10 elementary school teachers who said the same (9 percent of K–2 teachers and 6 percent of grade 3–5 teachers). Furthermore, nearly half of middle and high school teachers said that cyberbullying occurred at least occasionally in their classrooms (45 percent and 46 percent, respectively), compared to approximately one out of five elementary school teachers who said the same (25 percent of grade 3–5 teachers and 17 percent of K–2 teachers) (Figure 7). A possible reason that cyberbullying was slightly lower in grades 3–5 compared to K–2 may be that digital citizenship competencies were more heavily taught in grades 3–5 and teachers of grades 3–5 were more likely to teach about digital drama, cyberbullying, and hate speech than teachers of other grade levels.

© 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM 13 Regarding online hate speech, approximately three out of 10 Additional Disaggregated Findings middle or high school teachers, compared to approximately one Years of teaching experience. Teachers with 20 years or less of out of 10 elementary school teachers, said it happened at least teaching experience were more likely than teachers with 21 or occasionally in their classrooms (31 percent of high school teach- more years of teaching experience to teach digital citizenship ers, 26 percent of middle school teachers, 11 percent of grade 3–5 competencies (63 percent of teachers with 21 or more years of teachers, and 14 percent of K–2 teachers). experience taught digital citizenship competencies vs. approxi- When asked how often sexting occured in their classrooms, mately 74 percent of teachers with one to 20 years of experience). approximately one quarter of teachers responded “not sure/not Teachers with six to 20 years of teaching experience also were applicable” (24 percent). Six percent of teachers said that sexting more likely than teachers with 21 or more years of experience to occurred in their classrooms “frequently” or “very frequently,” use digital citizenship curricula or resources (51 percent of teach- and 16 percent said it occurred at least “occasionally.” The fre- ers with 21 or more years of teaching experience used digital quency of teachers’ reports of sexting increased with grade level, citizenship curricula or resources, compared to 61 percent of with high school teachers reporting the issue more often than teachers with six to 20 years of teaching experience). While more teachers of other grade levels and middle school teachers report- teachers with one to five years of experience used digital citizen- ing it more often than elementary school teaches (27 percent of ship curricula or resources (57 percent) than teachers with 21 or high school teachers reported that sexting occurred in their more years of teaching experience (51 percent), this difference classrooms at least occasionally, compared to 19 percent of was not significant. middle school teachers, 5 percent of third- to fifth-grade teach- School racial/ethnic diversity. Teachers in schools with more ers, and 9 percent of kindergarten to second-grade teachers). It diverse student populations (in which students of color com - is rather surprising and alarming that the incidence of K–2 teach- prised more than 26 percent of the student population and white ers observing sexting was even 9 percent; among the 25 K–2 students comprised less than 74 percent) were more likely to use teachers who responded “very frequently,” “frequently,” and digital citizenship curricula or resources than teachers in schools “occasionally,” responses were split evenly across response with predominantly white student populations (75 percent or categories. more white students). In schools with predominantly white Although cyberbullying, online hate speech, and “sexting” were student populations, half of teachers used digital citizenship cur- the least commonly reported issues, the rates at which teachers ricula or resources, compared to approximately 61 percent of observed these issues in their classrooms warrant reflection. The teachers in schools with more diverse student populations. frequency of both cyberbullying and online hate speech increased Similarly, teachers in schools with more diverse student popula- with grade level, with middle and high school teachers reporting tions were more likely to teach digital citizenship competencies, higher frequencies of cyberbullying and online hate speech than as compared to teachers in schools with predominantly white primary school teachers. student populations. Approximately two-thirds of teachers in schools with predominantly white student populations taught any of the digital citizenship competencies listed on the survey, whereas approximately 75 percent of teachers in schools with more diverse student populations (comprising approximately 26 percent to 74 percent students of color) did the same. Although teachers in schools with 75 percent or more students of color were more likely to teach digital citizenship competencies than teachers in schools with predominantly white students, the difference was not significant (72 percent of teachers in schools with 75 percent or more students of color vs. 67 percent of teachers in schools with 75 percent or more white students). The findings suggest that teachers in racially and ethnically diverse school settings may be more aware of the importance of digital citizenship in the context of advancing students’ responsible and critical usage of digital technology.

14 THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM © 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. School Title I status. Teachers in Title I schools were more likely to use digital citizenship curricula or resources than teachers in more affluent schools (62 percent of teachers in Title I schools vs. 52 percent of teachers in non-Title I schools). However, there were no differences in the frequency of teaching digital citizenship competencies according to Title I status. Although teachers in Title I schools were more likely to report teaching digital citizenship competencies than teachers in more affluent schools, the difference was not significant (74 percent of teachers in Title I schools vs. 69 percent of teachers in non-Title I schools).

Teachers in more affluent schools that did not have Title I status also reported “technology distracts students from the learning experience and interferes with learning” more often than those in Title I schools (29 percent vs. 24 percent, respectively).

Subject areas. Foreign language, physical education, and fine arts teachers reported more often than math or science teachers that cyberbullying occurred at least occasionally in their classrooms (40 percent of foreign language teachers, 37 percent of PE teachers, and 34 percent of fine arts teachers vs. 27 percent of math or science teachers). Similarly, these same teachers also reported more often that online hate speech occurred at least occasionally in their classrooms as compared to math or science teachers (30 percent of foreign language teachers, 26 percent of PE teachers, and 25 percent of fine arts teachers vs. 17 percent of math or science teachers). Finally, foreign language, PE, and fine arts teachers were more likely to report that technology distracted from learning (28 percent, 38 percent, and 29 percent of foreign language, PE, and fine arts teachers, respectively), as compared to math and science teachers who reported the same (20 percent and 21 percent, respectively).

© 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM 15 TEACHERS’ USAGE OF DIGITAL TOOLS AND PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR EFFECTIVENESS FOR STUDENT LEARNING

THE IMPACT OF EDUCATIONAL technology on learning often •• Communication and portfolio tools depends on the context in which and purpose for which the tech- (e.g., Remind, ClassDojo, Seesaw) nology is used. Teachers’ own beliefs about the relevance of •• Well-being and health tools technology to learning also influence the impact of educational (e.g., GoNoodle, Mind Yeti, Amaze) technology. In this chapter, teachers’ usage and perceptions of the effectiveness of various types of educational technology tools •• Free resources for educators are discussed, while considering the context of teaching and (e.g., PBS, National Geographic, OER) learning, including grade levels and subject areas. This chapter also explores teachers’ attitudes toward assistive technology. Teachers were asked about the types of digital tools they used with their students in their classrooms and how frequently they To assess teachers’ usage of and perceptions of a broad variety used them. For each type of digital tool they indicated using, of educational technology tools, a list of 12 types of educational teachers were asked how effective they found the digital tool for technology tools was developed and presented in the survey increasing three types of student learning outcomes 7: using a randomized order: •• Students’ engagement in learning •• Learning management systems (e.g., Google Classroom, Canvas, Moodle) •• Students’ skills in communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and/or creativity •• Video-streaming services (e.g., YouTube, SchoolTube, Netflix) •• Students’ knowledge and/or skills in a specific subject area

•• Social media If a teacher indicated the digital tool was “moderately,” “very,” or (e.g., Twitter, Facebook) “extremely” effective for developing content knowledge and/or •• Core curricular programs skills in a specific subject area, they were asked in which subject (e.g., Read 180, Achieve 3000, Edmentum) area it was effective and provided with subject area choices in which they had indicated they taught. •• Supplemental apps or websites (e.g., Khan Academy, IXL, Kahoot!)

•• Productivity and presentation tools (e.g., Google G Suite for Education [including Google Docs, Slides, Sheets], Microsoft Office 365 [including Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint], Nearpod)

•• Digital creation tools (e.g., iMovie, Photoshop, Scratch)

•• Digital games (e.g., Minecraft, BrainPop, DreamBox)

•• Assistive technology (e.g., Texthelp, Bookshare, text-to-speech software)

7. The survey asked, “Based on your experiences with technology products in your classroom, how effective is/are the type(s) of technology product(s) listed below, for … ?“ on a five-point, unipolar scale.

•• Most K–12 teachers use a variety of digital tool types •• Within subject areas, there are mismatches between (4.6 on average) with students in their classrooms. the types of technology products teachers use most Only 5 percent of K–12 teachers used no digital tools, frequently and the types of technology products they and 75 percent used three or more types of digital tools rate most effective for developing content knowledge with students in their classrooms. Teachers used more and skills. For example, ELA teachers rated productivity digital tools, on average, in grades 3–5 and 6–8. and presentation tools and assistive technology as the most effective types of digital tools for developing ELA •• Video-streaming services (e.g., YouTube, SchoolTube, content knowledge and skills, but they often used other Netflix) were the most commonly used type of digital digital tools that they rated as less effective with greater tool, used by approximately 60 percent of K–12 teach- frequency. Similarly, math teachers rated supplemental ers with students in their classrooms. Productivity and apps or websites as the most effective digital tools for presentation tools (e.g., Google G Suite for Education, developing students’ content knowledge and skills in Microsoft Office) constituted the second-most-common math, but they used them less often than many other type of digital tool, used by approximately half of teach- digital tools they rated as less effective. ers with their students. The least used digital tools were tools for well-being and health (25 percent), digital cre- •• Teachers generally report positive experiences with ation tools (25 percent), and social media (13 percent). assistive technology (AT), although almost a quarter of Video-streaming services, productivity and presentation teachers (24 percent) believe that AT gives students an tools, and/or learning management systems were the unfair advantage over other students, while slightly most frequently used type of tool, with approximately more than half of teachers (55 percent) disagree. three out of 10 K–12 teachers using them at least two to •• Forty-five percent of teachers identify “access to three times per week. equipment” as a barrier to using AT more often, while •• Most digital tool types, with the exception of social 31 percent identify “lack of training/knowledge of what media, were rated as effective for engaging students is available.” Teachers in Title I schools are more likely to in learning. identify insufficient access to equipment as a barrier.

•• Productivity and presentation tools (e.g., Google G Suite for Education, Microsoft Office), digital creation tools (e.g., iMovie, Photoshop, Scratch), and learning management systems (e.g., Google Classroom, Canvas, Moodle) were rated by teachers as the most effective digital tools for developing students’ 21st-century skills in communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and/ or creativity. Though teachers by a wide margin saw digital creation tools as being effective for developing 21st-century skills, they were among the least used tools in the classroom.

© 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM 17 Teachers’ Usage of Digital Tools FIGURE 8. Types of digital tools teachers use in their Only a small minority of teachers (5 percent) reported that they classrooms did not use any type of digital tools with their students. On Video-streaming services average, teachers reported using 4.6 types of digital tools with students in their classrooms, with half of teachers using more 58% than four types. The frequency with which teachers used digital Productivity and presentation tools tools in the classroom varied by the type of digital tool that was 54% used. Discussed below are the most commonly used digital tools and the digital tools that were used most frequently in the class- Supplemental apps or websites room (or the “stickiest” digital tools). 51% Most common digital tools. As shown in Figure 8, video-streaming Free resources for educators services (e.g., YouTube, SchoolTube, Netflix) constituted the most popular type of digital product among teachers, used by 50% approximately six out of 10 teachers with students in their class- Learning management systems rooms (58 percent). Productivity and presentation tools (e.g., Google G Suite for Education, Microsoft Office) constituted the 48% second most popular category, used by slightly more than half of Digital games teachers with students in their classrooms (54 percent). 47% Four types of digital products were similarly popular, with each type used by roughly half of teachers: Communication and portfolio tools 36% •• Supplemental apps or websites (51 percent)

(e.g., Khan Academy, IXL) Core curricular programs

•• Free resources for educators (50 percent) 29% (e.g., PBS, National Geographic, OER) Assistive technology

•• Learning management systems (48 percent) 29% (e.g., Google Classroom, Canvas, Moodle) Well-being and health tools •• Digital games (47 percent) (e.g., Minecraft, BrainPop) 25%

Digital creation tools Less common types of digital products, used by approximately a 25% third of teachers, included:

•• Communication and portfolio tools (36 percent) Social media (e.g., Remind, Class Dojo, Seesaw) 13%

•• Core curricular programs (29 percent) None of these (e.g., Read 180, Achieve 3000, Edmentum) 5% •• Assistive technology (29 percent) (e.g., Texthelp, Bookshare, text-to-speech software)

A quarter of teachers used digital tools for well-being and health, and a quarter used digital creation tools. Only one in 10 teachers used social media with students in their classrooms.

18 THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM © 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Most popular and “stickiest” digital tools. If a teacher reported using a digital tool, the survey also asked them to report the FIGURE 9. Frequency of teachers’ usage of classroom frequency with which they used the digital tool (summarized in technology, by type Figure 9). Overall, learning management systems were used with Communication and portfolio tools the greatest frequency by the largest number of teachers. —1% 40% 23% 20% 7% 4% 5% Approximately half of all K–12 teachers used learning management systems (48 percent), and among those teachers who used Learning management systems learning management systems approximately two-thirds (65 38% 27% 17% 9% 6% 2 % percent) did so at least two to three times per week. Thus, each approximately, three out of 10 K–12 teachers in the U.S. (31 Core curricular programs percent) used learning management systems at least two to 3% 2% 35% 32% 18% 7% eac h three times per week. Assistive technology By comparison, although more teachers (58 percent) used video- 3% streaming services in the classroom, they generally used 35% 23% 19% 12% 6% eac h video-streaming services less frequently. Among the teachers Well-being and health tools who used video-streaming services, slightly less than half (47 2%— percent) did so at least two to three times a week; thus, slightly 32% 33% 18% 9% 4% 3% fewer than three out of 10 K–12 teachers in the U.S. (27 percent) Productivity and presentation tools used video-streaming services at least two to three times a week. 32% 22% 19% 12% 10% 3% Similarly, while slightly more than half of teachers used produc- each tivity and presentation tools (54 percent), slightly more than half Social media (54 percent) used them at least two to three times a week in their 26% 13% 23% 16% 8% 5% 10% classrooms. Thus, approximately three out of 10 K–12 teachers in the U.S. (29 percent) used productivity and presentation tools at Video-streaming services least two to three times a week in their classrooms. 2%— 19% 28% 24% 16% 8% 3% Communication and portfolio tools also were intensively used Supplemental apps or websites among teachers who chose to use them (36 percent of K–12 teachers); approximately 63 percent did so at least two to three 15% 28% 23% 15% 12% 4% 3% times per week. Thus, nearly a quarter of U.S. K–12 teachers used Free resources for educators communication and portfolio tools at least two to three times per 14% 27% 25% 18% 8% 5%3% week (23 percent).

Core curricular programs and assistive technology also were used Digital games 4% intensively by the approximately three out of 10 U.S. K–12 teach- 14% 28% 27% 15% 9% each ers who chose to incorporate them into their classrooms (29 percent). Among the teachers who used either core curricular Digital creation tools programs or assistive technology, approximately two-thirds (67 9% 16% 19% 20% 15% 14% 7% percent) did so at least two to three times per week. Thus, approximately two out of 10 U.S. K–12 teachers used core curricu- ◼ Daily ◼ 2–3 times per week ◼ About once per week lar programs and/or assistive technology in their classrooms at ◼ 2–3 times per month ◼ About once per month ◼ About once every two months ◼ Less often least two to three times a week (19 percent and 17 percent, respectively). Tools for well-being and health also were used Note: Segments may not total 100% due to rounding. intensively by few teachers. While only a quarter of teachers used tools for well-being and health, approximately two-thirds (65 percent) did so at least two to three times per week.

© 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM 19 Overall, these findings suggest that certain digital tools—namely, Types of digital tools most commonly used also varied by grade learning management systems, communication and portfolio level. Teachers of grades K–2 used several types of digital prod- tools, core curricular programs, assistive technology, and tools for ucts less commonly than teachers of the other grade bands: well-being and health—are less commonly used by teachers but •• Video-streaming services the teachers who use these digital tools tend to do so more (49 percent of K–2 teachers vs. 59 percent of grade 3–5 intensively. teachers, 63 percent of grade 6–8 teachers, and 59 percent Teachers’ digital tool use by grade band. Teachers of grades K–2 of grade 9–12 teachers) were more likely than teachers of grades 3–5 to report not using •• Productivity and presentation tools any digital tools with students in their classrooms (8 percent of (33 percent of K–2 teachers vs. 51 percent of grade 3–5 K–2 teachers vs. 4 percent of grade 3–5 teachers). The average teachers, 60 percent of grade 6–8 teachers, and 66 percent number of digital tools that teachers used in the classroom peaks of grade 9–12 teachers) in grades 3-5, and trends down slightly thereafter (Figure 10). A one-way analysis of variance showed that K–2 teachers used •• Supplemental apps or websites fewer digital tools than teachers of grades 3–5 and 6–8, while (41 percent of K–2 teachers vs. 53 percent of grade 3–5 teachers of grades 3–5 used more digital tools than teachers of teachers, 58 percent of grade 6–8 teachers, and 51 percent grades 9–12 8. There were no significant differences in the average of grade 9–12 teachers) number of digital tools used by teachers of grades K–2 vs. of •• Learning management systems grades 9–12, teachers of grades 3–5 vs. of grades 6–8, or teachers (28 percent of K–2 teachers vs. 51 percent of grade 3–5 of grades 6–8 vs. of grades 9–12. teachers, 53 percent of grade 6–8 teachers, and 55 percent of grade 9–12 teachers)

•• Assistive technology (18 percent of K–2 teachers vs. 34 percent of grade 3–5 FIGURE 10. Average number of digital tool types used in the teachers, 37 percent of grade 6–8 teachers, and 27 percent classroom, by grade band of grade 9–12 teachers)

Teachers in grades 3–5 used two types of digital products more 5.2 4.9 4.5 often than teachers of other grade levels: 4.0 •• Free resources for educators. Teachers of grades 3–5 reported using open educational resources (OER) more often than teachers of grades 6–8 and more often than high school teachers (59 percent of grade 3–5 teachers vs. K–2 3–5 6–8 9–12 51 percent of K–2 teachers, 48 percent of grade 6–8 teachers, and 45 percent of grade 9–12 teachers).

•• Digital games. Teachers of grades 3–5 used digital games more often than teachers of other grade levels, whereas high school teachers used digital games with their students less often than teachers of other grade levels (66 percent of grade 3–5 teachers vs. 51 percent of K–2 teachers, 47 percent of grade 6–8 teachers, and 29 percent of grade 9–12 teachers).

8. A one-way ANOVA test showed significant differences in the number of digital tools that teachers used in their classrooms according to the grade-level band they taught: F(3, 1203) = 9.499, p < .001. A Tukey post hoc test showed significant differences between teachers of grades K–2 and of grades 3–5 (p < .001), teachers of grades K–2 and of grades 6–8 (p < .005), and teachers of grades 3–5 and of grades 9–12 (p < .005). There was no significant difference between teachers of grade K–2 and of grades 9–12, between teachers of grades 3–5 and of grades 6–8, or teachers of grades 6–8 and of grades 9–12.

20 THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM © 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Teachers’ usage of several types of digital tools increased with teachers’ widespread use of productivity and presentation tools grade level: and intensive use of learning management systems; however, the potential of digital creation tools to support students’ noncogni - •• Productivity and presentation tools. Teachers of grades tive skills and engagement seems underutilized. K–2 used these tools with their students less often than teachers of any other grade level, while teachers of grades 3–5 used these less often than teachers of grades 6–12 (33 percent of K–2 teachers vs. 51 percent of grade 3–5 FIGURE 11. Teachers who rated various digital tools “extremely” or “very” effective for engaging teachers, 60 percent of grade 6–8 teachers, and 66 percent students in learning of grade 9–12 teachers).

•• Digital creation tools. Teachers of grades 6–12 used digital Well-being and health tools creation tools with their students more often than teachers 75% of K–2, and high school teachers used digital creation tools Productivity and presentation tools more often than grade 3–5 teachers (17 percent of K–2 and 22 percent of grade 3–5 teachers vs. 28 percent of grade 74% 6–8 teachers and 30 percent of grade 9–12 teachers). Digital creation tools

•• Social media. High school teachers used social media more 73% often than teachers of other grade levels. Overall, K–5 teachers used social media much less often with their stu- Learning management systems

dents than teachers of grades 6–12 (8 percent of K–2 and 72% 7 percent of grade 3–5 teachers vs. 14 percent of grade 6–8 teachers and 21 percent of grade 9–12 teachers). Video-streaming services

72% Teachers’ usage of tools for well-being and health decreased with grade level. Teachers of grades K–5 used these tools more often Free resources for educators with their students than teachers of grades 6–12 (41 percent of 71% K–2 and 40 percent of grade 3–5 teachers vs. 14 percent of grade Supplemental apps or websites 6–8 teachers and 10 percent of grade 9–12 teachers). 71%

Teachers’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Assistive technology

Digital Tools 69%

Most digital tools were rated as highly effective for engaging Communication and portfolio tools students in learning (Figure 11), consistent with broad views that 67% technology is in and of itself an effective way to engage students.

Among the most common and frequently used tools, productivity Digital games and presentation tools, learning management systems, and 63% video-streaming services were highly rated for engaging students in learning. Core curricular programs

For developing students’ 21st-century skills, including communi- 63% cation, collaboration, critical thinking, and/or creativity, teachers Social media rated productivity and presentation tools, digital creation tools, and learning management systems as the top three most 39% effective digital tools (Figure 12, page 22). These results support

© 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM 21 For developing students’ content knowledge and skills in a spe- skills varied by subject area, providing a more useful picture of cific subject area, seven of the 12 digital product categories were how different types of digital tools lend themselves to different closely rated (Figure 13). subject areas.

As discussed in the next section, teachers’ effectiveness ratings of digital tools for developing students’ content knowledge and

FIGURE 12. Teachers who rated various digital tools FIGURE 13. Teachers who rated various digital tools “extremely” or “very” effective for developing “extremely” or “very” effective for developing students’ skills in communication, collaboration, students’ content knowledge or skills in a specific critical thinking, and/or creativity subject area

Productivity and presentation tools Free resources for educators

73% 97%

Digital creation tools Supplemental apps or websites

70% 96%

Learning management systems Assistive technology

64% 94%

Assistive technology Productivity and presentation tools

59% 93%

Well-being and health tools Core curricular programs

57% 93%

Free resources for educators Video-streaming services

56% 92%

Communication and portfolio tools Digital creation tools

54% 92%

Core curricular programs Learning management systems

51% 90%

Supplemental apps or websites Digital games

51% 89%

Video-streaming services Well-being and health tools

51% 80%

Digital games Communication and portfolio tools

51% 71%

Social media Social media

48% 65%

22 THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM © 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Subject-Area Gaps Between Effectiveness digital tools that were used frequently by PE teachers (i.e., sup- Perceptions and Usage plemental apps or websites, core curricular programs, assistive technology, digital games) were rated relatively ineffective for For each of five major subject areas (ELA, math, science, social developing content knowledge and skills in PE. studies, and PE), a gap analysis was performed to examine the consistency between teachers’ usage and effectiveness ratings for each type of digital tool. FIGURE 14. ELA teachers’ usage and perceptions of the Productivity and presentation tools and assistive technology effectiveness of various digital tools for were rated as the most effective types of digital tools for develop- increasing ELA content knowledge and skills ing ELA content knowledge and skills (Figure 14). However, the gap analysis revealed that ELA teachers used productivity and Productivity and presentation tools presentation tools and assistive technology less frequently than 87% 95% other digital tools they rated as less effective for developing ELA content knowledge and skills. ELA teachers used free resources Assistive technology for educators, digital games, and tools for health and well-being 89% 94% more, or as frequently, as productivity and presentation tools and assistive technology but rated these tools as much less effective Core curricular programs for developing students’ content knowledge and skills. 94% 92% Math teachers rated supplemental apps or websites as the most Learning management systems effective digital tool for developing students’ content knowledge 89% and skills in math but used supplemental apps or websites less 90% often than many other digital tools rated as less effective (i.e., Communication and portfolio tools core curricular programs and learning management systems) 91% (Figure 15, page 24). Math teachers frequently used several types 89% of digital tools that were rated as relatively less effective (e.g., free Social media resources for educators, tools for health and well-being, and 77% digital creation tools). 80%

Within science and social studies, free resources for educators Digital creation tools were rated as the most effective type of digital tool, and educa- 66% tors used this type of digital tool relatively frequently (Figure 16, 79% page 24 and Figure 17, page 25). Trends in science and social Video-streaming services studies teachers’ usage of digital tools, and their ratings of effec- 88% tiveness for developing content knowledge and skills, did not 74% reveal any gaps that would suggest that effective tools are being Supplemental apps or websites underutilized. Rather, the trends suggest that a number of digital 85% tools (i.e., core curricular programs, tools for health and well- 74% being, supplemental apps or websites, and social media) are Digital games being used frequently with relatively little effect on content 86% knowledge and skills. 68%

Physical education teachers rated tools for health and well-being Free resources for educators 87% as most effective for developing physical education content 64% knowledge and skills (Figure 18, page 25). Physical education teachers might consider using tools for health and well-being Well-being and health tools 94% even more frequently for developing content knowledge and 60% skills, as these were rated the most effective and most commonly used type of digital tool within physical education. A number of ◼ Used tool 2–3 times per month ◼ Rated tool “moderately,” “very,” or “extremely” effective

© 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM 23 FIGURE 15. Math teachers’ usage and perceptions of the FIGURE 16. Science teachers’ usage and perceptions of the effectiveness of various digital tools for effectiveness of various digital tools for increasing math content knowledge and skills increasing science content knowledge and skills

Supplemental apps or websites Free resources for educators 87% 89% 92% 87%

Digital games Video-streaming services 86% 90% 81% 86%

Learning management systems Productivity and presentation tools 90% 82% 73% 75%

Communication and portfolio tools Learning management systems 89% 91% 70% 71%

Core curricular programs Digital games 94% 88% 64% 67%

Video-streaming services Digital creation tools 89% 66% 64% 64%

Productivity and presentation tools Assistive technology 82% 87% 63% 64%

Assistive technology Communication and portfolio tools 87% 92% 61% 64%

Social media Supplemental apps or websites 76% 86% 52% 55%

Well-being and health tools Social media 95% 76% 50% 49%

Digital creation tools Well-being and health tools 66% 94% 50% 43%

Free resources for educators Core curricular programs 88% 93% 44% 36%

◼ Used tool 2–3 times per month ◼ Used tool 2–3 times per month ◼ Rated tool “moderately,” “very,” or “extremely” effective ◼ Rated tool “moderately,” “very,” or “extremely” effective

24 THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM © 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. FIGURE 17. Social studies teachers’ usage and perceptions FIGURE 18. Physical education teachers’ usage and of the effectiveness of various digital tools for perceptions of the effectiveness of various increasing social studies content knowledge digital tools for increasing physical education and skills content knowledge and skills

Free resources for educators Well-being and health tools 88% 87% 87% 90%

Video-streaming services Social media 89% 68% 85% 65%

Productivity and presentation tools Video-streaming services 84% 88% 78% 65%

Learning management systems Communication and portfolio tools 92% 92% 76% 55%

Social media Learning management systems 81% 84% 68% 52%

Digital creation tools Free resources for educators 66% 83% 67% 38%

Communication and portfolio tools Productivity and presentation tools 91% 80% 67% 38%

Assistive technology Digital games 90% 82% 61% 34%

Digital games Assistive technology 87% 89% 60% 29%

Supplemental apps or websites Digital creation tools 88% 59% 50% 27%

Core curricular programs Core curricular programs 93% 97% 43% 27%

Well-being and health tools Supplemental apps or websites 94% 90% 42% 24%

© 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM 25 Assistive Technology FIGURE 19. Teachers’ experiences with assistive technologies Teachers were asked about their experiences using assistive technology in their classrooms and provided with a definition in There are children in my class who have an unfair advantage over the survey: “An assistive technology (AT) is a device or approach other students because they use assistive technologies. that a person can use to perform certain important activities. For 24% 21% 55% individuals with learning and attention issues or other disabilities, they might include such tools as text-to-speech technology, and Assistive technologies are a good way for students who need them dictation software.” Part of digital equity includes ensuring that to access information and demonstrate knowledge students with different needs can access devices or software that 2%— enable them to learn, communicate, and participate inside the 88% 10% classroom. Strongly agree, somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Teachers generally reported positive experiences with AT, ◼ ◼ ◼ Strongly disagree, somewhat disagree although there may be room for growth in perceptions of the fair- 1% — ness of the advantages that AT affords students who use them. Nearly nine out of 10 teachers (88 percent) agreed that AT is a good way for students to access information and demonstrate FIGURE 20. Teachers’ reasons for not using AT in their knowledge. Approximately six out of 10 teachers (55 percent) classrooms more than they do currently disagreed that AT gives students an unfair advantage over other students, while almost a quarter agreed (24 percent) (Figure 19). Insufficient access to equipment

The primary reasons that teachers did not use AT in their class- 45% rooms more than they currently did generally had to do with Lack of training/knowledge of what is available access to equipment and training (Figure 20). Forty-five percent of teachers identified “access to equipment” as a barrier to using 31% AT more often, while 31 percent identified “lack of training/ Lack of time knowledge of what is available.” Teachers in Title I schools were 19% more likely to report insufficient access to equipment than teachers in non-Title I schools (48 percent vs. 40 percent), as were Already use AT and don't need to do more teachers in urban schools compared to teachers in suburban 17% schools (50 percent vs. 41 percent). The third most common barrier was “lack of time,” reported by 19 percent. Approximately Not applicable one out of five teachers (17 percent) said they already used AT 9% and did not feel they needed to use AT more. Approximately one out of 10 teachers said their administrations were not supportive Administration is not supportive of AT (8 percent) and/or that students and/or parents didn’t 8% want AT (8 percent). Only a minority of teachers (5 percent) said they didn’t use AT and didn’t think it was necessary and/or that Student and/or parents don't want AT they didn’t use AT more often because “other students think it’s 8% unfair” (4 percent). Most teachers who indicated “not applicable” specified that AT was “not needed” by their students or that they Don't use AT and don't think it's necessary did not have students who would benefit from AT. 5%

Other

Other students think it's unfair

26 THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM © 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Additional Disaggregated Findings Math teachers tended to report use and non-use of a couple of types of technologies: School Title I status. Overall, there were no differences in the usage of video-streaming services or productivity and presenta- •• Core curricular programs (e.g., Read 180, Achieve 3000, tion tools according to Title I status of the teachers’ schools. Edmentum) were used by math teachers more than teach- However, teachers in Title I schools were more likely to report ers of any other subject and used more often by math, using several types of digital products with their students as science, and social studies teachers than by PE teachers. compared to those in non-Title I schools: supplemental apps or •• Video-streaming services (e.g., YouTube, SchoolTube, websites, free resources for educators, learning management Netflix) were seldom used by math teachers. systems, digital games, communication and portfolio tools, core curricular programs, assistive technology, and tools for well- Other technologies were used by teachers of a variety of sub- being and health. jects, generally with the exception of fine arts, PE, and foreign Although teachers in Title I schools were more likely to report language teachers: using certain types of digital products with students in their •• Digital games (e.g., Minecraft, BrainPop, DreamBox) were classrooms, the average number of digital tools they used did not used more often by science teachers than teachers of any differ significantly from those used by teachers in more affluent other subject and more often by social studies, math, and schools (Figure 21). ELA teachers than by teachers of foreign language, PE, or fine arts.

•• Supplemental apps or websites (e.g., Khan Academy, IXL, FIGURE 21. Average number of digital tool types teachers used, by school’s Title I status Kahoot!) were used by math teachers more often than by ELA teachers and more often by teachers of math, science, social studies, foreign language, and ELA than by fine arts or PE teachers. 4.9 4.7 •• Communication and portfolio tools (e.g., Remind,

3.4 ClassDojo, Seesaw) were used more by science teachers than teachers of ELA, social studies, fine arts, or PE and used more often by math, social studies, and foreign language teachers than by fine arts or PE teachers.

Title I Non-Title I Not sure •• Well-being and health tools (e.g., GoNoodle, Mind Yeti, Amaze) were most often used by social studies, science, math, and PE teachers and least used by fine arts and Subject areas. Foreign language teachers most often used a few foreign language teachers. types of digital technologies: •• Free resources for educators (e.g., PBS, National •• Productivity and presentation tools (e.g., Google G Suite Geographic, OER) were used more by social studies and for Education, Microsoft Office 365, Nearpod) were most science teachers than by math, ELA, or fine arts teachers often used by foreign language teachers and least used by and least used by fine arts teachers. fine arts teachers. •• Digital creation tools (e.g., iMovie, Photoshop, Scratch) •• Learning management systems (e.g., Google Classroom, were most often used by fine arts, foreign language, and Canvas, Moodle) were used by foreign language teachers PE teachers and used less often by math teachers than by more than social studies, fine arts, or PE teachers and least teachers of ELA or the aforementioned subjects. used by fine arts or PE teachers. •• Assistive technology (e.g., Texthelp, Bookshare, text-to- •• Social media (e.g., Twitter, Facebook) was used more often speech software) were used most often by teachers of by foreign language teachers than teachers of other sub- “other” subjects and least often by fine arts teachers. jects. Teachers of fine arts, ELA, and social studies used social media slightly more often than teachers of math or •• Not using educational technology products was most often science. reported by teachers of fine arts and PE.

THIS CHAPTER EXAMINES U.S. K–12 teachers’ reports about other school features. This chapter also discusses findings related their students’ access to technology devices for classroom to parent-teacher communication about classroom technology. learning at home and at school, considering grade level and

HIGHLIGHTS

•• Eight out of 10 K–12 teachers have computing devices •• One-to-one access increases with grade level. High in their classrooms. school and middle school teachers were more likely than K–5 teachers to report that their students have 1-to-1 •• Four out of 10 teachers have 1-to-1 access for their classroom access to computing devices, while teachers students in their classrooms, three out of 10 have of grades 3–5 were more likely than K–2 teachers to shared devices with fewer than five students per device, report that their students have 1-to-1 classroom access and one out of 10 have shared devices with more than (49 percent and 47 percent of high school and middle five students per device. Public school teachers reported school teachers, respectively, vs. 38 percent and 29 percent more often than teachers in private schools that they of grade 3–5 and K–2 teachers, respectively). had 1-to-1 access to technology in their classrooms (43 percent vs. 29 percent, respectively). •• Approximately one out of 10 teachers (12 percent) reported that the majority of their students (61 percent •• Approximately one out of six teachers (16 percent) to 100 percent) did not have home access to the internet reported that their students’ classroom access to com- or a computer. These teachers were more likely to puting devices was best described as students bringing teach in Title I schools or schools serving predominantly their own devices to the classroom (e.g., students’ own students of color (>75 percent). cellphones and/or tablets or laptops). Teachers in non- Title I (more affluent) schools were more likely to report •• As grade levels increase, teachers are more likely to that their classroom access to technology primarily con- assign homework that requires access to digital devices sisted of students bringing their own devices (20 percent and/or broadband internet outside of school. Teachers of teachers in non-Title I schools vs. 13 percent of of grades 6–12 were more likely than teachers of K–5 to teachers in Title I schools). High school teachers were assign homework at least once a week that required more likely than teachers of other grade levels to report access to digital devices and/or broadband internet that their students brought and used their own devices outside of school (41 percent of high school teachers and as the primary mode of classroom technology access: 34 percent of middle school teachers vs. 23 percent of Thirty-three percent of high school teachers reported grade 3–5 teachers and 20 percent of K–2 teachers). students brought their own devices, compared to •• Teachers who assign homework that requires access 15 percent of middle school teachers, 4 percent of to digital devices and/or broadband internet outside of grade 3–5 teachers, and 6 percent of K–2 teachers. school are more likely to teach in affluent, non-Title I schools than in Title I schools. Approximately four out of 10 teachers in Title I schools (42 percent) never assigned homework that required such digital access outside of school, as compared to three out of 10 teachers in non-Title I schools (31 percent) who never did so.

•• Teachers with 21 or more years of experience are more access to broadband internet or a computing device likely than teachers with one to five years of teaching at home to do homework (34 percent), as compared experience to never assign homework that requires such to teachers in schools with a mix of white students digital access outside of school (43 percent of teachers and students of color or teachers in schools with with 21 or more years of experience vs. 37 percent of predominantly white students (26 percent vs. 27 percent, teachers with one to five years of experience). respectively).

•• Approximately a third of teachers (29 percent) said •• Teachers in schools serving predominantly students it would limit their students’ learning “a great deal” of color were less likely to agree that technology has or “quite a bit” if their students didn’t have home made it easier to have meaningful parent communica- access to a computer or the internet. Many teachers tion. However, three out of four teachers overall agree (42 percent) did not believe it would limit their students’ that technology has made it easier to have meaningful learning very much if their students did not have access communication with parents. to a computing device or the internet at home. •• High school teachers were more likely than elementary •• Teachers in schools with student populations of pre- school teachers to agree that parents have expressed dominantly students of color were more likely to say concerns that their school requires too much technology that it would limit their students’ learning “a great deal” use (22 percent vs. 14 percent, respectively). or “quite a bit” if their students did not have adequate

Classroom Access to Technology

Teachers were asked to indicate what type of access best FIGURE 22. Students’ access to classroom computing devices described their students’ access to a computing device in their classrooms (e.g., computer, laptop, tablet, or Chromebook) and Each student has a computing device (1:1 access) to “check all that apply.” The majority of teachers selected one 41% primary way that their students accessed technology in their classrooms (58 percent), whereas the remainder selected two Lab/media centers where the class can go

(21 percent), three (15 percent), or four or more ways that their 38% students accessed technology in their classrooms (6 percent). Mobile cart that is shared across classrooms Eight out of 10 U.S. K–12 teachers had either 1-to-1 access or 30% shared computing devices in their classrooms (82 percent). Four out of 10 U.S. K–12 teachers (41 percent) said their students had Shared computing devices in the classroom (<5 students per device) 1-to-1 access, three out of 10 (29 percent) said their students 29% shared devices with fewer than five students per device, and one out of 10 (12 percent) said their students shared devices with Shared computing devices in the classroom (5+ students per device) more than five students per device (Figure 22). 12%

Roughly a third of teachers (38 percent) reported that there is a Students bring and use their cell phones in the classroom lab/media center where their class could go to use computing 12% devices. Teachers who used a lab/media center as the “best” method by which their students obtained access to computing Students bring and use their tablets/laptops in the classroom devices tended to use a mobile cart for access to computing 8% devices (r = .43, p < .01) and tended not to have 1-to-1 access in their classrooms (r = –.36, p < .01).

© 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM 29 About one in three teachers (30 percent) reported that their students primarily accessed computing devices via a mobile cart FIGURE 23. Classroom access to computing devices, that is shared across classrooms. Teachers who primarily used a by grade level mobile cart for access to computing devices tended not to have 1:1 classroom access 1-to-1 access in their classrooms (r = -.34, p < .01). 29% Approximately one out of six teachers (16 percent) reported that 38% their students’ access to a computing device in their classrooms was best described as students bringing their own computing 47% devices to the classroom, including their own cellphones and/or 49% their own tablets or laptops. Students brought and used their own cellphones to the classroom more often than their own tablets or Lab/media center* laptops (12 percent vs. 8 percent, respectively). 43%

44% Classroom Access to Technology Increases with Grade Level 34% 33% As shown in Figure 23, 1-to-1 access increased with grade level. High school and middle school teachers were more likely than K–5 teachers to report that their students had 1-to-1 classroom Students bring their own devices access to computing devices, while teachers of grades 3–5 were 6% more likely than K–2 teachers to report the same (49 percent of 4% high school and 47 percent of middle school teachers vs. 38 15% percent of grade 3–5 teachers and 29 percent of K–2 teachers reported 1-to-1 classroom access). 33%

High school teachers were more likely than teachers of other grade levels to report that their students brought their own Mobile cart* devices and used them in the classroom as the primary mode of 29% classroom technology access: Thirty-three percent of high school 33% teachers reported that students brought their own devices, as 34% compared to 15 percent of middle school teachers, 4 percent of grade 3–5 teachers, and 6 percent of K–2 teachers. Middle school 27% teachers also were more likely than K–5 teachers to report students bringing their own devices as the primary mode of access Shared (<5 students per device) to technology in their classrooms. 38%

It might seem that having 1-to-1 classroom access to technology 34% (most commonly reported by high school teachers) is a conse- 22% quence of students bringing their own devices to the classroom and using them for learning. However, 1-to-1 access and students 23% bringing their own devices to the classroom were negatively cor- related across grade levels (r = -.11, p < .01) and even more so Shared (>5 students per device) among high school teachers (r = -.23, p < .01). Thus, the data 18% suggest that 1-to-1 access is an increasingly critical tool for learn- 14% ing in middle and high school, so middle and high school students ◼ K–2 are bringing their own digital devices into the classroom in the 10% ◼ 3–5 ◼ 6–8 absence of being provided with 1-to-1 devices or as a supplement 9% to classroom-provided 1-to-1 access. ◼ 9–12

*Shared across classrooms

30 THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM © 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Teachers of K–5 were more likely than teachers of grades 6–12 to computing devices with shared devices and fewer digital tools. report having shared computing devices in their classrooms, with Middle and high school teachers use fewer digital tools with their fewer than five students per device (38 percent of K–2 teachers students, with increasingly sustained, independent student work and 34 percent of grade 3–5 teachers vs. 22 percent of grade 6–8 that requires 1-to-1 access to computing devices. teachers and 23 percent of high school teachers). Teachers of Teachers who indicated that students were allowed to bring their grades 3–5 more often reported having classroom access to own cellphones into the classroom for learning (12 percent) were devices than teachers in middle schools (83 percent vs. 75 also asked as a follow-up question if they had instituted a specific percent, respectively). In addition, K–5 teachers were more likely cellphone policy in their classrooms. Among these teachers, 75 than teachers of grades 6–12 to report having a computer lab as percent indicated “yes” and 25 percent indicated “no.” their primary mode of access (43 percent of K–5 teachers vs. 33 percent of grade 6–12 teachers). Finally, K–2 teachers were more likely than grade 6–12 teachers to report having shared devices Access to Technology for Classroom Learning . with more than five students per device (18 percent of K–2 teach- at Home ers vs. 10 percent of grade 6–8 teachers and 9 percent of high Teachers were asked, “In your classroom, approximately what school teachers). percentage of students do not have adequate broadband Internet These results correspond with teachers’ reports about their and/or digital devices at home to do school work at home that usage of digital tools with students in their classrooms, in which would require using the Internet or a computer?” Approximately K–2 teachers reported using the fewest digital tools or no digital four out of 10 K–12 teachers said that the majority of their stu- tools at all and teachers of grades 3–5 reported using more types dents (80 percent or more) had adequate home access to a of digital tools with students in their classrooms than teachers of computer or the internet to do homework that required such other grade levels. Taken together, these results suggest that access (Table 3). Approximately another four out of 10 said that teachers scaffold students’ use of computing devices in grades many of their students did not have adequate home access to the 3–5 with a variety of digital tools and shared computing devices. internet or a computer to do schoolwork at home (21 percent to Teachers of grades K–2 might begin scaffolding usage of 60 percent of their students). Approximately one out of 10

TABLE 3. Students who lack adequate access to broadband internet and/or digital devices to do schoolwork at home

Teachers who say the following percentage of students 0%–20%. 21%–40%. 41%–60%. 61%–80%. 81%–100%. do not have adequate access at home n = 476 n = 26 4 n = 17 7 n = 96 n = 4 6 Total 39.4% 21.8% 14.7% 8.0% 3.8%

ab Grade level K–2 40.7% 15.5% 16.5% 6.6% 4.9% a 3–5 34.2% 22.8% 14.8% 10.4% 5.3% ab 6–8 38.7% 21.2% 16.2% 6.8% 3.1% b 9–12 42.7% 26.4% 12.1% 8.0% 2.5% a a a Regional setting Rural 31.8% 24.7% 19.3% 9.5% 2.6% a a a Urban 30.0% 20.6% 18.2% 13.9% 5.7% b b b Suburban 48.2% 21.0% 10.5% 4.0% 3.4% a a a a Racial/ethnic diversity 75%+ white students 51.9% 19.5% 8.7% 5.2% 1.8% b b b b 75%+ students of color 22.3% 23.8% 19.3% 15.5% 7.2% c b a a Diverse (26%–74% white) 42.8% 22.2% 15.8% 4.4% 2.7% a a a Title 1 status Title 1 28.5% 25.4% 18.8% 12.3% 4.8% b b b Non-Title 1 54.4% 17.0% 9.0% 2.0% 2.4%

Notes: Superscripts (a,b,c) are used to denote whether differences between groups are statistically significant (p<.05). Items with different superscripts differ significantly. Items that do not have a superscript, or that share a common superscript, do not differ significantly. Significance should be read down columns within each category. See page 5 for further definition of demographic groups.

© 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM 31 teachers (12 percent) reported that the majority of their students (61 percent to 100 percent) did not have home access to the FIGURE 24. Teachers who say at least 61 percent of students internet or a computer. Approximately one out of 10 teachers was do not have adequate access to broadband not sure what type of home access their students had. internet and/or digital devices to do schoolwork at home, by demographic group Teachers who reported that a majority of their students did not have adequate home access to the internet or a computer (61 Total percent to 80 percent and 81 percent to 100 percent of their 12% students) were more likely to teach in schools with Title I status and in schools in which students of color made up more than 75 Rural percent of the student population (as compared to predominantly 12% white schools and to mixed student populations made up of white students and students of color)(Figure 24). Teachers of K–12 who Urban reported that a minority of their students (0 percent to 20 20% percent) lacked home access to the internet or a computer were more likely to teach in suburban schools (as compared to rural or Suburban urban schools) and were more likely to teach in schools with 7% predominantly white student populations (as compared to schools with student populations made up of predominantly 75%+ white students students of color or mixed student populations with white stu- 7% dents and students of color) (Table 3, page 31).

Teachers whose students had higher levels of home access to the 75%+ students of color internet and computing devices were more likely to teach high 23% school than grades 3–5, suggesting that students may be more likely to obtain their own computing devices and internet access Diverse as they grow older. 7% As shown in Figure 25, just under half of K–12 teachers never or seldom assigned homework that required students to have Title I access to digital devices and/or broadband internet outside of 17% school. Nine percent of teachers assigned homework that required access to digital devices and/or broadband internet Non-Title I outside of school three to 10 times a year. Approximately one out 4% of 10 assigned such homework once a month (12 percent), and approximately three out of 10 (30 percent) assigned homework Note: See page 5 for further definition of demographic groups. that required access to digital devices outside of school at least once a week.

However, as grade levels increased, teachers were more likely to assign homework that required access to digital devices and/or FIGURE 25. Frequency with which teachers assign homework broadband internet outside of school. Teachers of grades 6–12 that requires access to digital devices and/or broadband internet outside of school were more likely than teachers of K–5 to assign homework at least once a week that required access to digital devices and/or broadband internet outside of school (41 percent of high school 37% 12% 9% 12% 15% 11% 4% teachers and 34 percent of middle school teachers vs. 23 percent of grade 3–5 teachers and 20 percent of K–2 teachers). Teachers ◼ Never ◼ Once or twice a year ◼ 3–10 times a year ◼ Once a month of grades K–2 were more likely never to assign homework that ◼ Once a week ◼ A few times a week ◼ Every day required such digital access outside of school, as compared to

32 THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM © 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. teachers of other grade levels. Approximately half of K–2 teachers (53 percent), four out of 10 grade 3–5 teachers (41 percent), three FIGURE 26. Teachers’ perceptions of whether students’ home out of 10 grade 6–8 teachers (34 percent), and two out of 10 high access to broadband internet and computing devices limits classroom learning school teachers (24 percent) never assigned homework that required such digital access outside of school. Teachers of grades

3–8 were also more likely than high school teachers never to 12% 29% 30% 20% 9% assign homework that required such digital access outside of school. ◼ Not at all ◼ Very little ◼ Some ◼ Quite a bit ◼ A great deal Teachers who assigned homework that required access to digital devices and/or broadband internet outside of school were more likely to teach in affluent, non-Title I schools than in Title I Middle and high school teachers were more likely than K–2 teach- schools. Approximately four out of 10 teachers (42 percent) in ers to say that it would limit their students’ learning “a great deal” Title I schools never assigned homework that required such or “quite a bit” if their students did not have adequate access to digital access outside of school, as compared to three out of 10 broadband internet or a computing device at home to do home- teachers (31 percent) in non-Title I schools who never did so. work (35 percent of high school teachers and 31 percent of Teachers in rural school settings were also more likely than middle school teachers vs. 22 percent of K–2 teachers and 24 teachers in urban settings never to assign homework that percent of grade 3–5 teachers). High school teachers were the required such digital access outside of school (45 percent of least likely to say that it would not limit their students’ learning at teachers in rural settings vs. 38 percent of teachers in urban all if their students lacked digital access to do homework outside settings). of school (8 percent of high school school teachers vs. 17 percent of K–2 teachers, 13 percent of grade 3–5 teachers, and 13 percent Finally, teachers with less teaching experience (one to 10 years) of grade 6–8 teachers). were more likely than teachers with 21 or more years of teaching experience to assign homework at least weekly that required Teachers in schools with student populations of predominantly such digital access outside of school. A third of teachers (33 students of color were more likely to say it would limit their stu - percent) with one to five years of experience, and 36 percent of dents’ learning “a great deal” or “quite a bit” if their students did teachers with six to 10 years of experience, assigned homework not have adequate access to broadband internet or a computing at least weekly that required such digital access outside of school, device at home to do homework (34 percent), as compared to as compared to 28 percent of teachers with 11 to 20 years of teachers in schools with a mix of white students and students of experience and 24 percent of teachers with 21 or more years of color or teachers in schools with predominantly white students experience. Teachers with 21 or more years of experience were (26 percent and 27 percent, respectively). Teachers in urban more likely than teachers with one to five years of experience school settings were more likely than teachers in rural or subur- never to assign homework that required such digital access ban settings to say that it would limit their students’ learning “a outside of school (43 percent of teachers with 21 or more years great deal” or “quite a bit” if their students did not have adequate of experience vs. 37 percent of teachers with one to five years of access to broadband internet or a computing device at home to experience). do homework (35 percent of teachers in urban school settings vs. 25 percent of teachers in rural school settings and 27 percent of Approximately a third of teachers said that it would limit their teachers in suburban school settings). students’ learning “a great deal” or “quite a bit” if their students didn’t have home access to a computer or the internet. Finally, public school teachers were more likely than private Approximately a third of teachers felt that it would limit their school teachers to say it would limit their students’ learning “a students’ learning “some” (30 percent). However, many teachers great deal” or “quite a bit” if their students did not have adequate (42 percent) did not believe it would limit their students’ learning access to broadband internet or a computing device at home to very much if their students did not have access to a computing do homework (30 percent of teachers in public schools vs. 18 device or broadband internet at home (Figure 26), though this percent of teachers in private schools). Conversely, private school changed when it came to students in upper grades. teachers were more likely to say that it would not limit their students’ learning at all if their students lacked digital access to do homework outside of school (24 percent of private school teachers vs. 11 percent of public school teachers).

Access to classroom devices was more commonly reported by teachers in public schools than by teachers in private schools (81 percent vs. 21 percent, respectively); by teachers in Title I schools than by teachers in non-Title I schools (81 percent vs. 75 percent); and by teachers in schools with a mix of white students and students of color than by teachers in schools with predominantly white students or predominantly students of color (82 percent vs. 76 percent and 77 percent, respectively). School type. Public school teachers reported more often than teachers in private schools that they had 1-to-1 access to technol- Teachers who assigned homework ogy in their classrooms (43 percent vs. 29 percent, respectively). that required access to digital Public school teachers also reported more often than private school teachers that they had shared devices with fewer than five devices and/or broadband students per device (30 percent vs. 19 percent, respectively). internet outside of school were School racial/ethnic diversity. Teachers in schools with student populations predominantly composed of students of color more likely to teach in affluent, reported more often that their classroom access to technology primarily consisted of shared devices with more than five stu- non-Title I schools than in dents per device as compared to teachers in schools with Title I schools. predominantly white student populations (15 percent of teachers in schools with predominantly students of color vs. 10 percent of teachers in predominantly white schools).

Title I status. Teachers in non-Title I (more affluent) schools were more likely to report that their classroom access to technology primarily consisted of students bringing their own devices (20 percent of teachers in non-Title I schools vs. 13 percent of teachers in Title I schools).

Subject areas. Science, math, and social studies teachers reported having access to classroom devices more often than teachers of fine arts (83 percent of teachers of science, math, and social studies vs. 77 percent of teachers of fine arts).

34 THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM © 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Teacher and Parent Communication About EdTech Parents have expressed concerns that their school requires … Teachers were asked about whether technology generally had made it easier to communicate with parents. The majority of K–12 FIGURE… too much 28. technology Parent-teacher use. communication about educational technology teachers agreed that technology had made it easier to have 16% 23% 61% meaningful communication with parents (76 percent), with 15 Parents have expressed concerns that their school requires … percent neither agreeing nor disagreeing and only 9 percent dis- … too little technology use. agreeing. However, these teachers were generally in schools in … too much technology use. suburban settings, with student populations consisting of both 16% 24% 60% 16% 23% 61% students of color and white students or of predominantly white students (Figure 27). Fewer teachers in schools with student Technology has made it easier for teachers to have meaningful populations consisting of predominantly students of color agreed communication… too little technology with parents. use. strongly or conclusively that technology had made it easier to 16% 24% 76% 15% 60% 9 % have meaningful conversations with parents (44 percent). This result suggests that technology may present some barriers to ◼ Strongly agree, agree, somewhat agree communication with parents in schools that serve predominantly Technology has made it easier for teachers to have meaningful communication with parents.◼ Neither agree nor disagree students of color. Teachers were also asked whether parents had ◼ Strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree expressed concerns to them about the amount of technology 76% 15% 9 % their schools required (Figure 28). ◼ Strongly agree, agree, somewhat agree Across K–12 grade levels, only 16 percent of teachers agreed ◼ Neither agree nor disagree (choosing “strongly agree,” “agree,” or “somewhat agree”) that ◼ Strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree parents had expressed concerns about the amount of technology required by their schools, regardless of whether that amount was too much or too little. High school teachers were more likely than elementary school teachers to agree that parents had expressed concerns that their schools required too much technology use

FIGURE 27. Teachers who agree/strongly agree that technology has made it easier to have meaningful communication with parents

RACIAL/ETHNIC DIVERSITY REGIONAL SETTING

54% 52% 53% 46% 47% 44%

75%+ students 75%+ Diverse* Rural Urban Suburban of color white students

*See page 5 for further definition of demographic groups.

© 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM 35 (Figure 29). Overall, there did not seem to be a great deal of concern from parents about the amount of technology that FIGURE 30. Frequency of parent-teacher communication schools required, and what little concern parents had expressed about technology for school/nonschool purposes to teachers appeared more often in high schools and related to How often do you communicate with parents about their child’s schools using too much technology. use of technology for … Communication about students’ use of educational technology was more common when it related to school purposes rather Nonschool purposes 2%— than nonschool purposes. Most teachers and parents communi- 34% 21% 13% 14% 10% 6% cated at least a few times a year about students’ usage of educational technology, whether for nonschool or school pur- School purposes poses. Approximately 40 percent of K–12 teachers communicated 3%— at least monthly with parents about educational technology for 19% 22% 17% 20% 11% 8% school purposes, whereas a third communicated at least monthly with parents about technology for nonschool purposes ◼ Never ◼ Once or twice a year ◼ 3–10 times a year ◼ Once a month (Figure 30). Approximately one-fifth of K–12 teachers never com- ◼ Once a week ◼ A few times a week ◼ Every day municated with parents about their children’s use of educational technology for school purposes, whereas a third never communicated with parents about educational technology for nonschool purposes. Teachers in schools with predominantly white students were less likely to communicate with parents about their chil- FIGURE 31. Parent-teacher communication about technology, dren’s use of technology as compared to teachers in schools with by racial/ethnic diversity of students student populations consisting of both students of color and Teachers who communicate with parents at least weekly about white students. their child’s use of technology for school/nonschool purposes

◼ School ◼ Nonschool FIGURE 29. Teachers who disagree/agree that parents have expressed concerns about the school requiring 28% too much technology use, by grade level

20% 21% K–2 17% 15% 16% 13% 23% 63%

75%+ white 75%+ students Diverse 3–5 students of color

14% 22% 65%

6–8

17% 27% 56%

9–12

22% 21% 57%

57% ◼ Strongly agree, agree, somewhat agree ◼ Neither agree nor disagree ◼ Strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree

Note: Segments21% may not total 100% due to rounding.

THIS CHAPTER EXPLORES TEACHERS’ reports about their of digital citizenship competencies, their observations of tech- school policies related to educational technology. In addition, nology-related concerns, and their participation in professional it explores how teachers’ reports about the presence of digital development that covers digital citizenship. citizenship policies at their schools correlates with their teaching

HIGHLIGHTS

•• The most common type of technology policy that •• Only four out of 10 teachers consider the PD they received schools implement is a cellphone policy (80 percent), to support their use of educational technology to be “very” followed by a student data privacy policy (74 percent), a or “extremely” effective. technology acceptable/responsible use policy (72 percent), •• Teachers in schools with digital citizenship policies are and a social media policy (71 percent). Approximately more likely to teach digital citizenship competencies, to half of teachers’ schools (48 percent) implemented digital learn about digital citizenship in their school- or district- citizenship policies. provided PD, and to view the digital citizenship curricula or •• Approximately a third of high school teachers’ schools do not resources they used as effective. implement digital citizenship policies, and approximately •• Eight out of 10 teachers reported that they make the deci- a quarter said their schools do not implement cellphone sion about whether or not to use digital products in their policies. Teachers of grades 3–8 were more likely than classrooms, with middle and high school teachers being K–2 or high school teachers to report that their schools more likely to say that they make the decision as com- had implemented cellphone policies (85 percent of grade pared to elementary school teachers. Although most 3–5 teachers and grade 6–8 teachers vs. 78 percent of K–2 teachers checked an approved list or confirmed that tech- teachers and 73 percent of high school teachers). nology products complied with school or district policies, •• Approximately a quarter of teachers find cellphone most had autonomy over whether or not they used policies difficult to follow, while roughly two-thirds find approved digital products in the classroom. them easy to follow. Teachers found the student data •• Approximately a third of teachers said that they did not, privacy policies, social media policies, and technology or practically never, used a technology product that was acceptable/responsible use policies easier to follow than provided to them by their school or district. Top reasons cellphone policies. for not using such products were that they were not rel- •• High school teachers were more likely than teachers of evant to students’ learning needs, not engaging for other grade levels to report that implementing cellphone students’ learning, or not effective for developing their policies, social media policies, and digital citizenship knowledge and/or skills. policies in their classrooms was difficult. •• When asked what they did not like about the technology •• Approximately nine out of 10 teachers participated in that their school or district provided, teachers cited insuf- school- or district-provided professional development ficient access to equipment, old or outdated equipment, (PD) to support their classroom technology use during the technology being hard or difficult to use, and/or technology last school year. Of teachers who received such PD in the being unreliable, breaking down, or otherwise not working. last school year, teachers spent 14.3 hours on average in When asked what they liked about the technology that their school- or district-provided PD to support their classroom school or district provided, most teachers cited the educational technology use. However, 48 percent of teachers received value, convenience, and usability, and many appreciated under five hours of PD, including 13 percent who received having sufficient access to and variety in their technology. none at all.

Teachers were asked, “Thinking about the policies at your school Cellphone to address educational technology, does your school implement FIGURE 32. Teachers’ reports of their schools’ implemention 80% 14% 6% any of the following types of policies to address students’ use of of educational technology policies, by type educational technology?” Then they were presented with a list of CellphoneStudent data privacy policies and definitions for each policy 9, as well as an “other” 74%80% 10% 14% 16% 6% option with a write-in response10 (Figure 32). StudentTechnology data acceptable/responsible privacy use Cellphone policies were the most common type of educational technology policy that teachers knew about and said their 72%74% 10% 19% 16% 9% schools implemented (80 percent) (Figure 32). The other TechnologySocial media acceptable/responsible use common types of technology policies that teachers reported their 71% 16% 14% schools implemented were: student data privacy policies (74 72% 19% 9% percent of teachers), technology acceptable/responsible use SocialTechnology media purchasing policies (72 percent of teachers), and social media policies (71 53% 71% 19% 16% 28%14% percent of teachers). Approximately half of teachers said that their schools implemented digital citizenship policies (48 percent TechnologyDigital citizenship purchasing of teachers). Teachers were the least sure about whether their 48%53% 19% 28% 28%23% schools had digital citizenship policies or technology-purchasing policies (approximately a quarter of teachers did not know DigitalOther citizenship whether their schools had either of these policies). 37% 48% 17% 28% 46%23% Teachers of grades 3-8 were more likely than K–2 or high school Other teachers to report that their schools had implemented cellphone ◼ Yes ◼ No ◼ Not sure policies (85 percent of grade 3–5 and grade 6–8 teachers vs. 78 37% 17% 46% percent of K–2 and 73 percent of high school teachers). Teachers of grades 3–5 were more likely than teachers of other grade levels ◼ Yes ◼ No ◼ Not sure to report that their schools had implemented student data did not implement cellphone policies: Twenty-three percent of privacy policies (82 percent of grade 3–5 teachers vs. 71 percent high school teachers vs. 10 percent of middle school and 10 of K–2 and 72 percent of middle and high school teachers). High percent of elementary school teachers did not implement cell - school and middle school teachers were more likely than K–2 phone policies. teachers to report that their schools had implemented technol- Urban school teachers were more likely than teachers in subur- ogy acceptable/responsible use policies (79 percent of high ban settings to report that their schools did not implement digital school teachers and 74 percent of middle school teachers vs. 63 citizenship policies (34 percent of urban schools did not imple- percent of K–2 teachers and 70 percent of grade 3–5 teachers). ment digital citizenship policies as compared to 26 percent of High school teachers were more likely than elementary and suburban schools and 29 percent of schools in rural settings who middle school teachers to report that their schools did not imple- did not implement digital citizenship policies). Urban school ment digital citizenship policies: Thirty-four percent of high teachers also were more likely than teachers in suburban settings school teachers vs. 26 percent of middle school and 15 percent to report that their schools did not implement social media poli- of elementary school teachers did not implement digital citizen- cies (20 percent of urban schools did not implement social media ship policies. High school teachers were also more likely than policies, as compared to 14 percent of suburban schools and 15 elementary or middle school teachers to report that their schools percent of schools in rural settings).

9. See Appendix: National Survey Instrument (page 48) for policy definitions provided to teachers. 10. See Appendix: Table A1 (page 49) for “other” technology policy write-in responses.

38 THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM © 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Finally, teachers in public schools were more likely than teachers in private schools to report that their schools implemented FIGURE 33. Teachers’ perceptions of the ease of several types of technology policies: student data privacy policies implementing their school or district’s educational technology policies, by type (75 percent of public school teachers reported that their schools implemented student data privacy policies vs. 62 percent of Student data privacy private school teachers), social media policies (72 percent of 78% 16% 5% public school teachers reported that their schools implemented 1%—

social media policies vs. 61 percent of private school teachers), Social media digital citizenship policies (50 percent of public school teachers 76% 16% 7% reported that their schools implemented digital citizenship 2%—

policies vs. 39 percent of private school teachers), and technol- Technology acceptable/responsible use ogy-purchasing policies (55 percent of public school teachers 75% 16% 7% reported that their schools implemented technology-purchasing 2%— policies vs. 38 percent of private school teachers). Digital citizenship

74% 18% 6% Private schools also were more likely than public schools to report 2%— that they did not implement several types of technology-related Cellphone policies, including: digital citizenship policies (37 percent of 67% 12% 21% private schools vs. 28 percent of public schools did not imple - 1%— ment digital citizenship policies), technology-purchasing policies Technology purchasing (34 percent of private schools vs. 17 percent of public schools did 65% 21% 11% not implement technology-purchasing policies), social media 3%— policies (23 percent of private schools vs. 15 percent of public ◼ Very easy, easy ◼ Neutral ◼ Difficult, very difficult ◼ Not sure schools did not implement social media policies), and student 37% 17% 46% data privacy policies (17 percent of private schools vs. 9 percent of public schools did not implement student data privacy policies). Disaggregated Findings for Classroom Implementation of School EdTech Policies For each of the policies that teachers indicated their schools had implemented, teachers were then asked, “For each of these poli- Grade level. High school teachers had the hardest time imple- cies, how difficult or easy is it for you to follow each of these menting their schools’ cellphone policies in their classrooms, policies in your classroom?” Most teachers found their school compared to teachers of other grade levels: Forty percent of high technology policies “very easy” or “easy” to follow (Figure 33). school teachers reported that implementing cellphone policies Two-thirds of teachers felt that cellphone policies were “very was “difficult” or “very difficult” vs. 24 percent of middle school easy” or “easy” to follow, whereas a quarter of teachers found teachers, 9 percent of grade 3–5 teachers, and 6 percent of K–2 school cellphone policies “difficult” or “very difficult” to follow. teachers. Middle school teachers were also more likely than Teachers generally reported that the student data privacy poli- elementary school teachers to say that implementing cellphone cies, social media policies, and technology acceptable/ policies in their classrooms was “difficult” or “very difficult.” responsible use policies were easier to follow than the cellphone High school teachers were also more likely than teachers of other policies. grade levels to say that implementing their schools’ social media policies was “difficult” or “very difficult” (12 percent of high school teachers vs. 6 percent of middle school and 3 percent of elementary school teachers). Finally, high school teachers were more likely than K–2 teachers and middle school teachers to say that implementing their schools’ digital citizenship policies was “difficult” or “very difficult” (9 percent of high school teachers vs. 2 percent of middle school teachers, 3 percent of K–2 teachers, and 7 percent of grade 3–5 teachers).

© 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM 39 Middle and high school teachers were more likely than K–2 teach- privacy policies were “very easy” or “easy” to implement in their ers to say that implementing the technology acceptable/ classrooms (80 percent vs. 74 percent, respectively). Conversely, responsible use policies at their schools was “difficult” or “very teachers in non-Title I schools reported more often than teachers difficult” (11 percent of high school teachers and 8 percent of in Title I schools that their schools’ student data privacy policies middle school teachers vs. 3 percent of K–2 teachers and 5 were “very difficult” or “difficult” to implement in their class - percent of grade 3–5 teachers). rooms (7 percent vs. 3 percent, respectively).

Meanwhile, teachers of grades K–5 were more likely than middle EdTech Professional Development Experiences or high school teachers to report that implementing their schools’ cellphone policies in their classrooms was “easy” or “very easy” Approximately nine out of 10 teachers (87 percent) participated (79 percent of K–2 teachers and 77 percent of grade 3–5 teachers in school- or district-provided professional development (PD) vs. 64 percent of grade 6–8 teachers and 49 percent of high during the last school year to support their classroom technology school teachers). Similarly, teachers of K–5 were more likely than use. Considering only the teachers who received such PD, teach- high school teachers to report that implementing social media ers spent 14.3 hours on average in school- or district-provided PD policies, technology acceptable/responsible use policies, and to support their classroom technology use in the last school year. digital citizenship policies was “easy” or “very easy” to implement Across all teachers, including those who did not participate in any in their classrooms (82 percent of K–2 teachers reported that such PD, teachers spent 12.5 hours on average in school- or dis- social media policies were easy to implement, compared to 71 trict-provided PD to support their classroom technology use in percent of high school teachers; eighty percent of K–2 teachers the last school year. However, as shown in Figure 34, very few reported that technology acceptable/responsible use policies teachers participated in sustained training experiences of 21 or were easy to implement, compared to 70 percent of high school more hours. More than half of teachers participated in quick teachers; and eighty percent of K–2 teachers reported that digital trainings that consisted of less than 10 hours (56 percent). citizenship policies were easy to implement, compared to 67 Teachers of K–2 were less likely than high school or grade 3–5 percent of high school teachers). teachers to have participated in technology-related PD provided School racial/ethnic diversity. Teachers at schools with predomi- by their school or district. Approximately 18 percent of K–2 teach- nantly white student populations were more likely to report that ers did not participate in PD to support their use of educational they found implementing their schools’ technology acceptable/ technology, compared to 9 percent of high school teachers and responsible use policies “difficult” or “very difficult” (15 percent 11 percent of grade 3–5 teachers. Furthermore, high school teach- of teachers in schools serving predominantly white student popu- ers were more likely than teachers of K–2 to report that they lations vs. 9 percent of teachers in schools serving both white participated in at least 21 hours of such PD, with 18 percent of students and at least 26 percent students of color). Teachers in high school teachers reporting 21 or more hours compared to 11 schools serving either predominantly white student populations percent of teachers of K–2. or predominantly students of color reported that they found implementing the technology acceptable/responsible use policies at their schools to be “difficult” or “very difficult,” as FIGURE 34. Teachers who participated in school- or district- compared to teachers in schools serving both white students and provided PD to support their use of technology, at least 26 percent students of color (4 percent of teachers in by number of hours spent in the last year more mixed schools vs. 11 percent of teachers in schools serving predominantly white students and 8 percent of teachers in 35% schools serving predominantly students of color, respectively).

School type. Teachers in public schools reported more often than teachers in private schools that their schools’ cellphone policies 21% were “very difficult” or “difficult” to implement in their classrooms 15% (22 percent vs. 11 percent, respectively). 13% 10% 6% Title I status. Teachers in Title I schools reported more often than teachers in non-Title I schools that their schools’ student data None 1–5 6–10 11–15 16–20 21+

40 THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM © 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Private school teachers were also less likely than public school teachers to have participated in PD to support educational tech- FIGURE 36. Among teachers who participated in school- nology use, with 25 percent of private school teachers reporting or district-provided PD in the last year, topics covered to support their use of that they participated in zero hours of such PD, compared to 11 educational technology percent of public school teachers.

The most common topics covered in school- or district-provided Using educational games with instruction technology-related PD were “using educational games with instruction” and “using technology for formative assessment and/or to differentiate instruction,” which approximately half of Using tech for formative assessment and/or to differentiate instruction teachers who received such PD reported learning about (Figure 36). Using mobile apps and/or devices within instruction Four out of 10 teachers considered the PD they received to be “very” or “extremely” effective while approximately one out of 10 considered it to be “slightly” effective, and only a very small Using technology with students with special needs or number considered it “not at all” effective (3 percent) (Figure 35). English-language learners

Teachers in schools with diverse student populations composed of at least 26 percent students of color and white students were Digital citizenship more likely to consider the PD they received as “very” or “extremely” effective, as compared to teachers in schools with predominantly students of color (38 percent of teachers in Identifying and evaluating high-quality, standards-aligned digital content to use in my instruction schools with predominantly students of color vs. 46 percent of teachers in schools with at least 26 percent students of color and less than 75 percent white students). Understanding student data privacy requirements and strategies

Teachers of K–2 were more likely than middle school or high school teachers to rate the PD they received as “extremely,” Identifying mobile apps and/or learning how to use them with students “very,” or “moderately” effective (92 percent of K–2 teachers vs. 86 percent and 84 percent of middle school and high school teachers, respectively). Implementing a “flipped classroom” or “blended learning” model

FIGURE 35. Among teachers who participated in PD in the last year, their ratings of the level of effectiveness Using social media to keep students and parents informed of technology-related PD received

Creating videos of my lessons and lectures for students 44%

33% Learning how to leverage digital tools to support student investigations

10% 10% Developing and/or facilitating an online course 3% Extremely Very Moderately Slightly Not at all

Other

© 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM 41 Digital Citizenship Policies: Correlations with As discussed above, 22 percent of U.S. K–12 teachers learned Teaching Digital Citizenship about digital citizenship in their school- or district-provided professional development (26 percent of the 87 percent of teachers As described above, approximately half of teachers (48 percent) who participated in school- or district-provided PD related to said their schools implemented digital citizenship policies, three educational technology). Teachers in schools with digital citizen- out of 10 (28 percent) said their schools did not implement, and ship policies were more likely to participate in PD that covered two out of 10 (23 percent) were not sure. digital citizenship. Among teachers who participated in PD Teachers in schools with digital citizenship policies were more related to educational technology, 40 percent of teachers in likely to teach digital citizenship competencies and to use digital schools with digital citizenship policies learned about digital citi- citizenship curricula. Teachers in schools with digital citizenship zenship, compared to 14 percent of teachers in schools without policies taught 2.85 digital citizenship competencies on average, digital citizenship policies. compared to teachers in schools without policies, who taught 1.85 competencies on average. Furthermore, teachers in schools Decisions to Use EdTech Products and Perceptions with digital citizenship policies were less likely to say that they did of District-Procured Technology not teach any of the digital citizenship competencies identified in Teachers were asked to indicate strategies they used to deter- the survey. Among teachers in schools without digital citizenship mine whether a digital product was safe and secure to use with policies, 32 percent of teachers did not teach any of the digital their students and were provided with six possible strategies, for citizenship competencies identified in the survey, compared to 16 which they could select “All that apply” and options of “I’m not percent of teachers in schools with digital citizenship policies who sure how to determine if a digital product is safe and/or secure to said the same. Similarly, among teachers in schools without use with my students” and “Not applicable or not a factor.” digital citizenship policies, 56 percent of teachers did not use any of the digital citizenship curricula or resources identified in the On average, teachers indicated that the most popular strategies survey, compared to 23 percent of teachers in schools with digital were: 1). using the digital product prior to using it with students, citizenship policies who said the same. and 2). checking the product against an approved list (Figure 37).

Teachers in schools with digital citizenship policies were more likely to view the digital citizenship curricula or resources they FIGURE 37. Strategies teachers use to determine whether used as effective. In schools with digital citizenship policies, 55 digital products are safe to use with students percent of teachers rated the digital citizenship curricula or resources they used as “very” or “extremely” effective, compared Use the app first to 49 percent of teachers in schools without digital citizenship 47% policies who said the same. Have an approved list of digital products to check against Teachers in schools with digital citizenship policies were more likely to report that their schools “frequently” or “very frequently” 43% intervened in digital incidents involving students that occurred in Match against requirements of tech acceptable/responsible use policy off-school hours (25 percent), as compared to teachers in schools without digital citizenship policies (18 percent). Teachers 42% in schools with digital citizenship policies also were more likely to Consult with district/school administrator or designated official report that “parents or caregivers of students in my class fre - 38% quently or very frequently post supportive messages about me or the administration online” (19 percent), as compared to teach- Ask other teachers ers in schools without digital citizenship policies (13 percent). 35% There were no other differences in teachers’ observations of the technology-related concerns queried in the present survey Review privacy policy/practices in product documentation according to whether teachers’ schools implemented digital citi- 28% zenship policies. Not sure

42 THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM © 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Approximately six out of 10 teachers (62 percent) used two or more types of strategies to determine whether digital products FIGURE 38. Teachers who make the decision on whether or were secure and safe to use with their students. Approximately not to use educational applications and/or three out of 10 teachers used only one strategy to determine the services in their classrooms safety and security of digital products (29 percent), and very few teachers felt unsure about how to determine the safety and security of digital products for use in their classrooms (3 percent). No 20% Elementary school teachers were more likely than middle school teachers to use an approved list to check digital products’ safety; forty-seven percent of K–5 teachers selected this strategy, com- Yes 80% pared to 37 percent of grade 6–8 teachers. Public school teachers also were more likely than private school teachers to check digital products against an approved list (45 percent of public school teachers vs. 30 percent of private school teachers). Private schools and middle schools may be less likely than public schools and schools of other grade levels to have approved lists for safe Although most teachers must and secure digital products

Teachers in Title I schools were more likely to say that they used consult school or district policies the digital tool first as compared to teachers in non-Title I schools to determine which digital (50 percent of teachers in Title I schools vs. 43 percent of teachers in non-Title I schools). In addition, teachers with less products they can use in their experience were more likely than those with more experience to try the digital product first to determine whether it was safe and classrooms, teachers appear to secure for use with students (54 percent of teachers with 10 or have autonomy over whether they fewer years of teaching experience tried the digital product first, compared to 40 percent of teachers with 11 or more years of use such products in their teaching experience). classrooms at all. Eight out of 10 teachers reported that they made the decision about whether or not to use digital products in their classrooms (Figure 38). Teachers of grades 6–12 were more likely than elementary school teachers to say that they decide whether or not to use educational applications and/or services in their class- FIGURE 39. Teachers’ ratings of the level of importance of the rooms (84 percent of teachers of grades 6–12 vs. 75 percent of privacy policy in their decision to use applications teachers of grades K–5). Among the teachers who make such or services in their classrooms decisions, the overwhelming majority (84 percent) said that the privacy policy or practices were “extremely” or “very” important 47% in their decisions to use educational applications or services in their classrooms (Figure 39). Although most teachers must 37% consult school or district policies to determine which digital products they can use in their classrooms, teachers also appear to have autonomy over whether they use such products in their classrooms at all. Approximately two-thirds of teachers (63 13% <1% percent) reported that they either checked the technology 3% acceptable/responsible use policy and/or an approved list of Extremely Very Moderately Slightly Not at all digital products provided by their schools or districts to determine whether the digital product was safe and/or secure for use in their classrooms.

© 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM 43 Teachers were also asked, “Has your school or district purchased or provided you with any digital products or devices that you FIGURE 40. Teachers’ usage of school- or district-provided practically never use, or have decided not to use in your class- educational technology room?” Roughly a third of teachers said yes, a third said no, and Has your school or district provided you with any digital products roughly a third said it’s possible because they thought that they or devices that you practically never use, or have decided not to would not necessarily know if they weren’t using such products use in your classroom? (Figure 40).

Teachers in public schools were more likely than teachers in private schools to say they did not use digital products provided Possibly* Yes 30% by their schools or districts (37 percent of public school teachers 36% vs. 26 percent of private school teachers). In addition, teachers with five or fewer years of teaching experience were more likely No than teachers with 11 or more years of experience to say that 34% they did not use the technology provided by their schools or districts (43 percent of teachers with one to five years of teaching experience vs. 33 percent of teachers with 11 or more years of *”It’s possible that my district provides digital products or devices that I never use because I might not know such products or devices exist.” teaching experience).

Among teachers who reported not using a digital product provided by their district or school, the top reason these teachers gave was that the product was not relevant to their students’ TABLE 4. Teachers’ reasons for not using digital product(s) or device(s) provided by their schools or districts learning needs, reported by 39 percent of these teachers. The second and third reasons for not using a school- or district-pro- Percentage of teachers who thought the product was … vided digital product were that the product was not effective for Not relevant to students’ learning needs 39% engaging students (29 percent) or for supporting students’ Not effective for engaging students 29% knowledge or skills (23 percent). Reasons that teachers provided Not effective for supporting students’ skills/knowledge 23% for not using school- or district-provided digital products are Too hard to use 19% listed in Table 4. Teachers in suburban schools were more likely than teachers in rural or urban schools to say that they had not Too slow and/or unreliable 18% used a digital product provided by their school or district due to Out of date 16% the product being “not relevant to my students’ learning needs” Other (net) 17% (46 percent vs. 31 percent and 34 percent, respectively). Teachers of grades 3–5 were more likely than teachers of grades 6–12 to say that they had not used a school- or district-provided digital product due to it being “not effective for engaging stu - dents” (39 percent of grade 3–5 teachers vs. 25 percent of grade 6–12 teachers). Furthermore, teachers with one to five years of teaching experience were more likely than teachers with 21 or more years of teaching experience to say that they did not use a school- or district-provided product in their classrooms because the digital product was “not effective for engaging students” (35 percent vs. 21 percent, respectively).

44 THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM © 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Although a third of teachers said they “might not know if there was a digital product available to them that they were not using,” FIGURE 41. Teachers’ ratings of how well their school or teachers generally agreed that their schools or districts commu- district communicates about educational technology available for classroom use nicated with them at least “moderately” well about opportunities to use digital products or devices in their classrooms (Figure 41).

Only a quarter of teachers felt their schools or districts commu - 39% nicated only “slightly” or “not at all” well about opportunities to use digital products or devices in their classrooms. 26% When considering only the teachers who said they were unsure whether they were not using school- or district-provided digital 14% products that were available to them, the percentage of teachers 11% 10% who felt their schools or districts communicated “slightly” or “not at all” well increased only nominally (29 percent). Thus, poor Extremely Very Moderately Slightly Not at all school or district communication does not appear to be a major reason that approximately a third of teachers said they were not sure whether they were not using technology products that were Teachers disliked the technology their schools or districts had available to them. selected because of technology-related issues such as insufficient Teachers were also asked open-ended questions about what they access to equipment (13 percent of teachers), old or outdated liked and did not like about the technology their schools or equipment (12 percent), technology being hard or difficult to districts had selected. Teachers most often commented that they use (8 percent), unreliable technology that broke down or didn’t liked the educational value of the technology that their schools work (6 percent), no training or not enough training (5 percent), or districts selected (44 percent of teachers) and commented technology being too slow (4 percent), and having too little time that the technology was interesting and engaging for students for time-consuming technology (4 percent). Teachers also said (9 percent of teachers), benefited students’ learning (9 percent they didn’t like technology their schools or districts selected of teachers), and was appropriate to students’ learning level and because it didn’t meet students’ learning needs or levels or didn’t suited students’ needs (7 percent of teachers). Teachers also apply to their subjects or curricula (11 percent). liked the convenience of the technology their schools or districts selected (20 percent of teachers), commenting that they liked the technology because it was easy to use and navigate or user- friendly (13 percent of teachers), was easily accessible to students and teachers (3 percent of teachers), and/or simplified teaching and learning (2 percent of teachers). Teachers also appreciated having good availability and sufficient access to equipment and technology (12 percent of teachers) and having many options and variety in the technology their schools or districts had selected (7 percent of teachers). Teachers also named a variety of specific software programs, apps, and devices that they liked (16 percent).

IT’S CLEAR THAT MANY educators see educational technology 3. Inequity in access to the internet and computing devices for as an integral and useful part of their pedagogical toolkits. classroom learning appears more in students’ home access Classroom access to technology is nearly universal, and teachers than in their classroom access. Teachers in Title I schools and rank many kinds of products as effective in engaging students in schools in which students of color comprised more than 75 and in supporting 21st-century learning. However, with the percent of the student population were more likely to report that nature of the classroom changing, we think it’s worth noting the their students lacked adequate home access to broadband inter- following observations: net and computing devices. Teachers in Title I schools were less likely to assign homework requiring home access to the internet 1. The increasing frequency of technology-related issues or a computer, and many teachers felt that lack of access to tech- reported by teachers of the upper grade levels underscores nology for learning at home limited their students’ learning. the importance of teaching digital citizenship at secondary Additionally, most K–12 teachers agreed that technology made it grade levels. It also suggests a need for more study of teachers’ easier to communicate with parents, and most communicated practices and needs for curricula or other pedagogical supports with parents at least a few times a year about their students’ in this area. As 1-to-1 access increases with grade level, students’ use of technology for school purposes. However, in schools digital citizenship competencies are more likely to be performed serving predominantly students of color, teachers tended to in the classroom, providing additional opportunities for issues disagree that technology had made it easier to communicate related to learners’ safety and well-being to surface. with parents. Communicating and forming relationships with students’ families is an important strategy for K–12 teachers 2. Nearly all K–12 teachers use a variety of digital tools with to seek guidance and support in helping youth reach their students in their classrooms. Teachers considered most digital educational goals and potentials. tools to be effective for engaging students in learning but were in more disagreement about which tools were effective for devel- This finding further suggests that inequities in technology access oping 21st-century skills and subject-specific content knowledge for learning tend to occur with students’ and families’ access and skills. Of the ones asked about, productivity and presentation to technology outside of school. Models showing how schools tools, learning management systems, and digital creation tools and teachers that serve predominantly students of color over- were rated as more effective than other types of digital tools come technology barriers to communicate with parents could for developing students’ 21st-century skills. Perhaps because potentially be valuable for addressing this type of inequity. In teachers viewed many tools as effective for engaging students addition, teachers seeking to incorporate technology into their in learning, teachers across subjects frequently used many types students’ learning at home and outside of school will need special of digital tools that they rated as relatively less effective for guidance to support families who have limited access to and developing subject-specific content knowledge and skills. This fluency with technology. mismatch may result in a waste of resources—namely, teachers’ and students’ time, district funds, ill-targeted professional development, and a general lack of efficiency in using digital tools for students’ learning.

46 THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM © 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 4. Professional development to support teachers’ use of edu- 7. The data confirm that teachers make important decisions cational technology is quite prevalent. Nine out of 10 teachers about the technology they use in their classrooms. The major- participated in an average of 14 hours of professional develop- ity of teachers do consider their students’ privacy, safety, and ment that covered issues such as integrating digital games into security in their decisions about what technology to use in their instruction and formative assessment. However, only 40 percent classrooms. But approximately a third of teachers have aban - of teachers felt that the PD they received to support their use of doned school- or district-provided technology that they felt was educational technology was effective. The results suggest there ineffective, irrelevant, or not engaging for their students, unreli- is room for improvement in terms of the quality of the professional able, or hard to use. This is wasteful on many levels and should development that schools and districts provide to support teach- lend itself to better communication between teachers and their ers’ technology implementation. Schools and districts might schools or districts about what is needed in the classroom. benefit from conducting needs assessments with their teachers While this report addresses many topics of importance related to to understand the optimal amount of training time and issues in 21st-century classrooms, there is far more to learn about the technology integration that teachers are most interested in. state of the modern classroom. For example, our understanding of what works and what doesn’t would be immeasurably 5. High school teachers’ most frequently observed concerns improved by longitudinal, wide-scale evaluations examining were related to digital technology, including some of the more the effectiveness of different technologies, products, curricula, serious safety issues, such as cyberbullying and hate speech. and teaching strategies. However, understanding in-classroom These data suggest that there is perhaps greater need for high teachers’ perspectives on edtech is critical. This report provides schools to address technology-related concerns with cellphone valuable and actionable information for educators, administra- policies, digital citizenship policies, and social media policies, but tors, policymakers, and other stakeholders to design equitable schools likely need more support and models for successfully educational experiences that prepare all students for a successful implementing these types of policies. future in the digital age.

6. The correlational data showed that schools that implemented digital citizenship policies were more likely to teach digital citizenship competencies, to learn about digital citizenship in their school- or district-provided PD, and to view the digital citizenship curricula that they used as effective. Teachers in schools with digital citizenship policies were also more likely to report that their schools intervened in digital incidents involving students outside of school and that parents were more likely to post supportive messages about them or the administration online. Future research involving longitudinal correlational data can better address the question of whether digital citizenship curricula and/or policies are helping schools mitigate technology- related concerns that are prevalent at their schools. Successful models of digital citizenship policies and instruction in elementary, middle, and high school contexts would likely be of interest to the many schools that are already implementing digital citizenship or related policies with difficulty (e.g., cellphone and social media policies) and to the schools that are observing unsafe and concerning behaviors related to technology (e.g., cyberbullying, online hate speech, students unable to critically evaluate online information, etc.).

National Survey Instrument

The full Educator Census Survey Instrument can be viewed at: www.commonsensemedia.org/educator-census-survey-instrument.

The survey included questions about the following research topics:

•• Teacher and school characteristics

•• Digital citizenship practices (teaching curricula and competencies, perception of curricula efficacy)

•• Assistive technology

•• Types of digital tools used by teachers with students in their classrooms (frequency)

•• Teachers’ decisions to use digital products in the classroom

•• Teachers’ perceptions of technology their schools or districts selected

•• Teachers’ awareness of educational technology policies at their schools and perceptions of the difficulty of implementation of these policies in their classrooms

•• Teachers’ perceptions of the efficacy of digital tool types that they used with students in their classrooms (for increasing student engagement, content knowledge and/or skills in subject-specific areas, and 21st-century skills)

•• Classroom access to technology for learning in the classroom and at home

•• Teachers’ experiences with professional development to support educational technology use

•• Parent and teacher communication about educational technology

In response to the question, “Thinking about the policies at your school to address educational technology, does your school implement any of the following types of policies to address students’ use of educational technology?,” approximately four out of 10 teachers (37 percent) indicated “other policy addressing educational technology at my school” and wrote in a response. Table A1 (see page 49) presents a summary of the qualitative responses, followed by the number and percentage of teachers who responded with each type among teachers who responded “other.”

48 THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM © 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. TABLE A1. Write-in responses of “other” technology policies that teachers reported their schools implement

Percentage of teachers ... Other: Other policy addressing educational technology at my school 20.4%* Other: Technology acceptable/responsible use policy 6.3% Acceptable websites/apps/website blockers/filters 5.5% Parental permission/consent/parent user agreement 4.2% Student contracts/code of conduct/user agreements 3.6% Safe usage/cybercrime/cybersecurity 3.5% Other: Social media policy/guidelines 3.4% Anti-bullying/anti-cyberbullying 2.9% General use/terms of use/appropriate use 2.4% Computer/internet usage policies 1.8% Students are assigned a device/iPad/Chromebook 1.6% Other: Cellphone policy 1.6% Supervision/monitoring 1.5% Student handbook/policy/rules found in handbook 1.3% District policies 1.3% Educational sites/apps only 1.2% Varies/various 1.1% Use of school technology/devices at home 1.0% Teacher user agreement/staff policy 1.0% Common sense 1.0% Homework/grades 0.9% Other: Technology purchasing policy 0.9% iPad/electronics usage policy 0.8% Time limits/screen time 0.7% Training 0.6% Personal use 0.6% Parental permission for student to be photographed/image used 0.6% Communication/communication with parents/students 0.4% Communication/communication with parents/students 0.4% Other: Student data privacy policy 0.4% Other: Digital citizenship policies 0.2% Nothing 19.8% Don't know 11.3%

*Those who responded “other” to the survey item (n = 441, or 37% of K–12 sample)

© 2019 COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: INSIDE THE 21ST-CENTURY CLASSROOM 49 About Common Sense Common Sense is the nation’s leading nonprofit organization dedicated to improving the lives of kids and families by providing the trustworthy information, education, and independent voice they need to thrive in the 21st century. Our independent research is designed to provide parents, educators, health organizations, and policymakers with reliable, independent data on children’s use of media and technology and the impact it has on their physical, emotional, social, and intellectual development. For more information, visit www.commonsense.org/research.

For inquiries, contact [email protected].

OUR OFFICES SAN FRANCISCO 650 Townsend Street, Suite 435, San Francisco, CA 94103 (415) 863-0600 NEW YORK 575 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022 (212) 315-2138 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor East, Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 350-9992 LOS ANGELES 1100 Glendon Avenue, 17th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90024 (310) 689-7535

© 2019 Common Sense Media. All rights reserved. Common Sense, associated names, associated trademarks, and logos are trademarks of Common Sense Media, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization (FEIN: 41-2024986).